Model comparison
Phi-3.5-MoE vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#239); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both.
Side by side
| Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | — | 32.9 |
| Released | 2024-08-17 | 2024-09-18 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 33K |
| Max output | — | 29K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.66 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 31 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 58% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 119.41 |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| LiveBench | — | 46.2% |
| PIQA | 88.6% | — |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |
Math Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GSM8K | 88.7% | 93% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1251 |
Knowledge Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | — | 1221 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |
| BoolQ | 84.6% | — |
| MMLU | — | 79.1% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1228 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1223 |
Long Context Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1251 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Phi-3.5-MoE: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-MoE | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 23.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-3.5-MoE better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#239); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
How many benchmarks do Phi-3.5-MoE and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Phi-3.5-MoE has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.