Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct
Compare Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct: Overview
Llama 4 Maverick, introduced on April 5, 2025, is one of the first models in Meta’s Llama 4 family, designed as a natively multimodal model supporting text + image inputs with text outputs. It employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 128 experts, activating ~17B parameters per token out of a pool of ~400B total parameters. This design improves scalability, efficiency, and reasoning capacity. Maverick has a 1M-token context window, enabling it to handle large documents, extended conversations, and multimodal reasoning. Its knowledge cutoff is August 2024.
The model is released under the Llama 4 Community License and comes in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) versions. Maverick is widely deployed via Hugging Face, Google Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock, and Oracle Cloud, making it one of the most accessible large open-weight models. However, it outputs text only (no image/audio generation) and, while input capacity is huge, output limits are typically much smaller. The MoE design also raises hardware demands, as maintaining 128 experts requires significant compute resources, and Meta’s license introduces restrictions around commercial-scale use.
Qwen2.5-VL-7B-Instruct is a 7-billion parameter vision-language model from Alibaba’s QwenLM team, released on January 26, 2025 under the Apache 2.0 license. It is the instruction-tuned variant of the 7B scale in the Qwen2.5-VL family, designed to process multimodal inputs such as text, images, charts, documents, and video. The model enables structured outputs—including JSON for structured content and bounding boxes for visual localization. Weights are publicly available on Hugging Face and GitHub, making it suitable for both research and applied multimodal use.
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct Comparison Table
| Property | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen2.5 VL 7B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2025 | Jan 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 33K |
| Parameters | 400B | 7B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | |
| Output $/1M | $0.600 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 52.24% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.30s | 47.64s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.4K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0004 | |
| Defect Detection | 66.7%(10/15) | 60%(9/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 30%(3/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 57.1%(8/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 78.6% | |
| Avg Response Time | 0.87s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 472 | |
| Median output tokens | 10 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0001 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 76.8%(76/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 60%(6/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology