Model comparison
Gemma 2 9B vs Phi-1.5
Gemma 2 9B has enough public results to be ranked (#334); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Google
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | |
| Noometry Index | 25.7 | — |
| Released | 2024-06-24 | 2023-09-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 29.0 (#299), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 34.7% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 22.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1174 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 40.6% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 15.3 (#306), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.78 | 90.82 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 15.2% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1172 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 36.4% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench | 28.7% | — |
| PIQA | 83.7% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 73.4% |
Math Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 9.3 (#312), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 19.8% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1183 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 21% | — |
| GSM8K | 84.9% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 9.7 (#300), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| BoolQ | 85.7% | 75.8% |
| MMLU | 72.1% | 37.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.5% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1147 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 44.4% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 37.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 36.8 (#233), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1188 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1185 | — |
| LMArena French | 1189 | — |
| LMArena German | 1186 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1144 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1200 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1200 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 57.8 (#264), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 52.6% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1178 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 36.3 (#228), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1197 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Gemma 2 9B: 32.3 (#276), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Gemma 2 9B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1206 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 841 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1193 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Gemma 2 9B better than Phi-1.5?
Gemma 2 9B has enough public results to be ranked (#334); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Gemma 2 9B and Phi-1.5 share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Gemma 2 9B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.