Model comparison
Gemma 2 27B vs Phi-1.5
Gemma 2 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#312); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Google
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | — |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2023-09-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 8K | — |
| Max output | 2K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.65 | — |
| Results tracked | 34 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 34.1 (#246), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 42.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 36% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1211 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.5% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 15.3 (#315), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 122.08 | 91.53 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 28.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1198 | — |
| DTBench | 48% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 47.9% | — |
| LMCA | 7.1% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench | 38.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 73.4% |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 10.7 (#311), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.4% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 26.5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1212 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 27.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 19.0 (#280), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 75.7% | 37.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 36.5% | — |
| Confabulations | 27.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1172 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 44.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 75.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 37.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 38.6 (#226), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1221 | — |
| LMArena French | 1247 | — |
| LMArena German | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1175 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1174 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 60.5 (#249), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1206 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 37.3 (#218), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1231 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 27B: 44.2 (#225), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 27B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1231 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1241 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1224 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 32.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 27B better than Phi-1.5?
Gemma 2 27B has enough public results to be ranked (#312); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 27B and Phi-1.5 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 27B has 34 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.