Model comparison
Phi-1.5 vs Qwen2-72B
Qwen2-72B has enough public results to be ranked (#294); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.
Side by side
| Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | — | 29.5 |
| Released | 2023-09-11 | 2024-06-07 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 7 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | — | 11.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 38.5% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1196 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | — | 1.1% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 29.9% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 90.82 | 125.27 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1191 |
| HellaSwag | 47.6% | — |
| WinoGrande | 73.4% | — |
Math Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1235 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 39.1% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 37.6% | 82.4% |
| GPQA Diamond | — | 40.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1171 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 44.4% | — |
| BoolQ | 75.8% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 37.2% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1176 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1240 |
| LMArena French | — | 1169 |
| LMArena German | — | 1151 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1111 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1083 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1169 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1168 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1181 |
Long Context Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1193 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Phi-1.5: —, Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236)
| Benchmark | Phi-1.5 | Qwen2-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1203 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1181 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1195 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-1.5 better than Qwen2-72B?
Qwen2-72B has enough public results to be ranked (#294); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Phi-1.5 and Qwen2-72B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-1.5 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2-72B has 26.