Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen2.5-Max
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5-Max in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Max leads 35.3 to 9.1.
- phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 40.7 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | 2025-01-25 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 27 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 64.4% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1359 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | 132.53 |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 51.4% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1360 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 67.9% |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 62.3% |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math Qwen2.5-Max leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | — | 58.4% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1369 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5-Max leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 21.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1337 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1352 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1382 |
| LMArena French | — | 1396 |
| LMArena German | — | 1350 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1300 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1304 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1353 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1377 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 75.3% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1335 |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1358 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5-Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1367 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1339 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 72.9% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1364 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 56.3% |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen2.5-Max?
Qwen2.5-Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.7 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen2.5-Max better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen2.5-Max share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Max has 27.