Model comparison
Llama 3.2 1B vs phi-3-medium 14B
phi-3-medium 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Meta
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.2 1B scores higher in 0 categories and phi-3-medium 14B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where phi-3-medium 14B leads 27.3 to 10.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 11.3% for Llama 3.2 1B and 48.7% for phi-3-medium 14B.
Side by side
| Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 20.1 | 29.7 |
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2024-04-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 60K | — |
| Max output | 54K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.027 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | — |
| Results tracked | 22 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding phi-3-medium 14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.1 (#338), phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 8.2% | 37.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 11.3% | 48.7% |
| LMArena Coding | 1070 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 14.6 (#150), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 10.8% | — |
| BALROG | 6.6% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 16.2 (#308), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 101.99 | 121.23 |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1044 | — |
| Adversarial NLI | — | 55.8% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | — | 81.4% |
| HellaSwag | — | 82.4% |
| WinoGrande | — | 81.5% |
Math phi-3-medium 14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 10.4 (#313), phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 0.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1086 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 17.6% |
Knowledge phi-3-medium 14B leads
Llama 3.2 1B: 7.2 (#312), phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 23.9% | 27.6% |
| LMArena Expert | 1007 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 91.6% |
| MMLU | — | 78% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 87.4% |
| TriviaQA | — | 73.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 23.8 (#292), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 973 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 959 | — |
| LMArena German | 1014 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 941 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 52.4 (#290), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 31.9 (#274), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1050 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 3.2 1B: 21.3 (#310), phi-3-medium 14B: —
| Benchmark | Llama 3.2 1B | phi-3-medium 14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1033 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 200 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1030 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 3.2 1B better than phi-3-medium 14B?
phi-3-medium 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 29.7 to 20.1 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 3.2 1B or phi-3-medium 14B better for coding?
phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.8 versus 21.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 3.2 1B and phi-3-medium 14B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.2 1B has 22 scored results on Noometry and phi-3-medium 14B has 13.