Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 35.5 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 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | — |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1314 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1299 |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1298 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1289 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1314 |
| LMArena German | — | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1271 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1275 |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1299 |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.