Model comparison
Llama 3.1-70B vs Phi-1.5
Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#308); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Meta
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | — |
| Released | 2024-07-23 | 2023-09-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.40 | — |
| Results tracked | 35 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 30.3 (#296), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 25.1 (#112), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
| BALROG | 27.9% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 21.6 (#220), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.92 | 91.53 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | — |
| DTBench | 60% | — |
| LMCA | 14.8% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 47.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73.4% |
Math Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 13.5 (#304), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1252 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 24.2 (#269), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 80.1% | 37.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 44.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 75.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 37.2% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 38.8 (#225), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | — |
| LMArena French | 1261 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 65.3 (#223), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#214), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.1-70B: 35.4 (#267), Phi-1.5: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | — |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Phi-1.5?
Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#308); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-1.5 share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.