Nous: Hermes 4 70B ranks higher at 24/100 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct at 23/100. Capability-level comparison backed by match graph evidence from real search data.
| Feature | Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct | Nous: Hermes 4 70B |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Model | Model |
| UnfragileRank | 23/100 | 24/100 |
| Adoption |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| Quality | 0 | 0 |
| Ecosystem | 0 | 0 |
| Match Graph | 0 | 0 |
| Pricing | Paid | Paid |
| Starting Price | $6.60e-7 per prompt token | $1.30e-7 per prompt token |
| Capabilities | 10 decomposed | 14 decomposed |
| Times Matched | 0 | 0 |
Generates syntactically correct and semantically sound code across 40+ programming languages (Python, JavaScript, Java, C++, Go, Rust, etc.) using instruction-tuned transformer architecture trained on high-quality code corpora. The model applies chain-of-thought reasoning patterns during generation to decompose complex coding tasks into intermediate steps, improving correctness for multi-step algorithms and architectural decisions. Supports both function-level completion and full-file generation with context awareness up to 32K tokens.
Unique: Instruction-tuned specifically for code reasoning tasks with explicit chain-of-thought patterns baked into training, rather than generic LLM fine-tuning; 32B parameter scale balances quality with inference latency for real-time IDE integration
vs alternatives: Outperforms smaller code models (7B-13B) on complex multi-step algorithms while maintaining faster inference than 70B+ models; specialized code training gives better syntax accuracy than general-purpose LLMs like GPT-3.5
Analyzes existing code to explain logic, identify design patterns, and reason about correctness using transformer-based semantic understanding of code structure. The model recognizes architectural patterns (MVC, factory, observer, etc.), dependency relationships, and control flow without requiring explicit AST parsing, instead learning these patterns from training data. Produces explanations at multiple abstraction levels: line-by-line logic, function-level intent, and system-level architecture.
Unique: Trained on code reasoning tasks with explicit instruction tuning for explaining architectural patterns and design decisions, rather than treating code explanation as a secondary capability of a general LLM
vs alternatives: Provides deeper architectural reasoning than GPT-3.5 for code explanation due to specialized training; faster than human code review for initial understanding while maintaining accuracy on complex patterns
Identifies bugs, runtime errors, and logical flaws in code by analyzing error messages, stack traces, and code context together. The model correlates error symptoms with root causes using patterns learned from debugging datasets, then generates targeted fix suggestions with explanations of why the bug occurred. Supports both syntax errors (caught at parse time) and semantic/logic errors (runtime or behavioral issues), with suggestions ranging from one-line fixes to architectural refactors.
Unique: Instruction-tuned on debugging datasets to correlate error symptoms with root causes and generate targeted fixes, rather than treating debugging as a secondary code generation task
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic LLMs at diagnosing semantic bugs (not just syntax errors) due to specialized training; faster than traditional debuggers for initial hypothesis generation
Transforms code to improve readability, maintainability, and performance while preserving functionality. The model applies refactoring patterns (extract method, rename variables, simplify conditionals, etc.) learned from high-quality code examples, and suggests optimizations based on algorithmic complexity and language-specific idioms. Generates refactored code with explanations of trade-offs (e.g., readability vs. performance) and can target specific style guides or frameworks.
Unique: Trained on refactoring patterns and performance optimization heuristics specific to code, enabling context-aware suggestions that balance readability, maintainability, and performance
vs alternatives: More nuanced than automated linters (which enforce rules mechanically) by reasoning about intent and trade-offs; faster than manual code review for identifying refactoring opportunities
Generates unit tests, integration tests, and edge case test suites from code specifications or existing implementations. The model identifies critical paths, boundary conditions, and error scenarios using code analysis patterns, then generates test code in the appropriate framework (pytest, Jest, JUnit, etc.). Supports test-driven development workflows by generating tests from requirements before implementation, and can generate fixtures, mocks, and test data.
Unique: Instruction-tuned to generate tests that identify edge cases and boundary conditions through code analysis, rather than generating simple happy-path tests like generic code generators
vs alternatives: Generates more comprehensive test suites than basic code completion tools; faster than manual test writing while maintaining framework-specific idioms and best practices
Generates comprehensive documentation for APIs, functions, and classes by analyzing code signatures, implementations, and usage patterns. The model produces docstrings in multiple formats (JSDoc, Sphinx, Google-style, etc.), generates parameter descriptions with type information, and creates usage examples. Supports generating documentation from code-first or spec-first approaches, and can infer documentation from type hints and implementation details.
Unique: Trained on code documentation patterns to generate format-specific docstrings (JSDoc, Sphinx, etc.) with accurate parameter descriptions and usage examples, rather than generic text generation
vs alternatives: More accurate than simple comment generation tools by understanding code semantics; faster than manual documentation writing while maintaining consistency across formats
Analyzes code changes to identify potential issues, security vulnerabilities, performance problems, and style violations. The model applies code review heuristics learned from high-quality review datasets, checking for common anti-patterns, security risks (SQL injection, XSS, buffer overflows, etc.), and architectural concerns. Provides actionable feedback with severity levels and suggestions for improvement, supporting both automated pre-review scanning and interactive review assistance.
Unique: Instruction-tuned on code review datasets to identify security vulnerabilities, performance issues, and architectural concerns with severity assessment, rather than treating code review as a secondary capability
vs alternatives: Combines security analysis (like SAST tools) with architectural reasoning (like human reviewers) in a single model; faster than manual review for initial feedback while maintaining context awareness
Converts natural language specifications, requirements, or pseudocode into executable code while preserving intent and context. The model maps natural language descriptions to code constructs, infers data structures and algorithms from requirements, and generates idiomatic code in the target language. Supports iterative refinement through follow-up questions and clarifications, and can generate code at multiple abstraction levels (high-level architecture, detailed implementation, or specific functions).
Unique: Instruction-tuned to map natural language intent to idiomatic code constructs with context preservation, rather than treating NL-to-code as simple template substitution
vs alternatives: More accurate than generic code generators at preserving intent from natural language; enables non-technical stakeholders to participate in feature implementation
+2 more capabilities
Dynamically switches between fast-inference and extended-reasoning modes during generation, allowing the model to allocate computational budget based on query complexity. The model learns to route simple queries through direct generation paths while complex reasoning tasks trigger iterative chain-of-thought processing, implemented via a learned gating mechanism that predicts reasoning necessity before token generation begins.
Unique: Implements learned gating mechanism for automatic reasoning mode selection rather than fixed routing rules or user-specified flags, enabling the model to discover optimal reasoning allocation patterns during training on diverse task distributions
vs alternatives: More efficient than standard chain-of-thought models (which always reason) and more capable than fast-only models (which never reason) by learning when reasoning is actually necessary
Generates multi-step reasoning chains with explicit intermediate steps, leveraging the 70B parameter scale to maintain coherence across long reasoning sequences. When activated, the model produces verbose step-by-step explanations with intermediate conclusions, implemented via training on synthetic reasoning datasets and reinforced through process-reward modeling to prefer logically sound intermediate steps.
Unique: Combines 70B parameter scale with process-reward modeling to maintain reasoning coherence across 10+ step chains, whereas smaller models typically degrade after 3-4 steps due to context drift and accumulated errors
vs alternatives: Produces more reliable multi-step reasoning than GPT-3.5 while being more cost-effective than GPT-4 for reasoning tasks, with explicit step visibility that proprietary models don't expose
Nous: Hermes 4 70B scores higher at 24/100 vs Qwen2.5 Coder 32B Instruct at 23/100.
Need something different?
Search the match graph →© 2026 Unfragile. Stronger through disorder.
Answers factual and reasoning-based questions by retrieving relevant knowledge and applying logical deduction. The model combines pattern matching from training data with reasoning chains to synthesize answers, particularly effective when questions require multi-step inference or combining information from multiple domains.
Unique: Combines dense knowledge from 70B parameters with learned reasoning patterns, enabling both factual recall and multi-step inference without requiring external knowledge bases for simple questions
vs alternatives: More self-contained than RAG-based systems for general knowledge questions; stronger reasoning than GPT-3.5 for complex multi-step problems
Analyzes sentiment and extracts opinions from text, classifying emotional tone and identifying specific viewpoints or attitudes. The model recognizes sentiment markers (words, phrases, context) and generates structured sentiment labels (positive/negative/neutral) with confidence scores and supporting evidence.
Unique: Uses contextual understanding from 70B parameters to recognize sentiment in complex linguistic contexts (sarcasm, negation, mixed opinions) rather than relying on keyword matching or shallow pattern recognition
vs alternatives: More nuanced than rule-based sentiment tools; comparable to fine-tuned BERT models but with better handling of complex linguistic phenomena
Identifies and extracts named entities (people, organizations, locations, dates, etc.) from text, classifying them into semantic categories. The model recognizes entity boundaries and types through learned patterns from training data, generating structured output with entity spans and classifications.
Unique: Uses contextual embeddings from 70B parameters to disambiguate entity boundaries and types based on surrounding context, rather than relying on gazetteer matching or shallow pattern recognition
vs alternatives: More accurate than spaCy NER for complex entity types; comparable to fine-tuned BERT models but with better generalization to unseen entity types
Identifies potentially harmful, inappropriate, or policy-violating content including hate speech, violence, adult content, and misinformation. The model applies learned safety patterns to classify content risk levels and flag problematic material, implemented through instruction-tuning on safety datasets and reinforcement learning from human feedback on safety preferences.
Unique: Trained on diverse safety datasets with RLHF to recognize context-dependent harms (e.g., discussing violence in historical context vs. inciting violence), rather than simple keyword matching or rule-based filtering
vs alternatives: More context-aware than keyword-based filters; comparable to OpenAI's moderation API but with lower latency and no external API dependency
Executes complex multi-part instructions with precise output formatting, using instruction-tuning techniques to reliably parse structured prompts and generate outputs matching specified schemas. The model was trained on diverse instruction datasets with explicit format specifications, enabling it to follow JSON schemas, XML structures, markdown formatting, and code block requirements with high consistency.
Unique: Instruction-tuned on 70B scale with explicit format examples in training data, enabling reliable multi-format output without requiring external grammar constraints or post-processing validation layers
vs alternatives: More reliable at format compliance than base Llama 3.1 70B while avoiding the latency overhead of constrained decoding libraries like outlines or guidance
Generates syntactically correct code across 20+ programming languages and performs refactoring tasks like optimization, style conversion, and bug fixing. Built on Llama 3.1's code training, enhanced with instruction-tuning for code-specific tasks, the model maintains language-specific idioms and best practices through learned patterns from diverse codebases.
Unique: 70B parameter scale enables context-aware code generation that tracks variable types and function signatures across 4K+ token contexts, whereas smaller models lose type information after ~1K tokens
vs alternatives: Comparable to Copilot for single-file generation but stronger at multi-file refactoring due to larger context window; more cost-effective than Claude for routine code tasks
+6 more capabilities