Model comparison

Llama 2-13B vs Phi-4

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-13B Meta

29.6

Rank #309 Confirmed

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-13B scores higher in 1 category and Phi-4 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where Phi-4 leads 37.2 to 26.5.

Side by side

Llama 2-13B and Phi-4 specifications
Llama 2-13BPhi-4
ProviderMetaMicrosoft
Noometry Index29.631.2
Released2023-07-182024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—128K
Max output—4K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.07
Output $ / M tokens—$0.14
Results tracked3237

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291), Phi-4: 34.4 (#239)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Coding10621231
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.5%
LiveBench Coding—30.7%
BigCodeBench Complete—55.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-13B: —, Phi-4: 22.8 (#128)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.8%
BALROG—11.6%

Reasoning Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337), Phi-4: 17.7 (#291)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
Chess Puzzles0%1%
LMArena Hard Prompts10511220
Epoch Capabilities Index106.17130.42
LiveBench Reasoning—47.8%
DTBench42.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—45.2%
BIG-Bench Hard58.2%—
HellaSwag80.7%—
LAMBADA76.5%—
LiveBench—41.6%
PIQA80.8%—
WinoGrande72.8%—

Math Llama 2-13B leads

Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229), Phi-4: 20.8 (#285)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Math10651246
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—13.8%
LiveBench Math—42%
MATH Level 5—64.9%
GSM8K36.9%—

Knowledge Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249), Phi-4: 32.6 (#209)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Expert10301203
MMLU55.6%84.8%
GPQA Diamond—56.1%
Confabulations—29.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—3.7%
ARC (AI2) Challenge60.3%—
BoolQ82.4%—
OpenBookQA57%—
TriviaQA79.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-13B: —, Phi-4: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
ScienceQA55.8%—

Multilingual Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279), Phi-4: 37.2 (#237)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Non-English10241197
LMArena Chinese10011212
LMArena French10441224
LMArena German10091222
LMArena Japanese8941158
LMArena Korean9531151
LMArena Russian10551209
LMArena Spanish10871234

Instruction Following Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287), Phi-4: 60.4 (#251)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Instruction Following10451201
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.4%

Long Context Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269), Phi-4: 36.9 (#226)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Longer Query10641217

Writing & Preference Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289), Phi-4: 40.5 (#244)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Text10841217
LMArena Creative Writing10471182
LMArena Multi-Turn10501206
Short-Story Creative Writing—62.6%
LiveBench Language—25.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-13B better than Phi-4?

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-13B or Phi-4 better for coding?

Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.4 versus 30.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-13B and Phi-4 share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-13B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper