Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3 14B
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 14B in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 14B leads 39.3 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B and 63.8% for Qwen3 14B.
Side by side
| phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 35.5 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.35 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $1.40 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 12 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen3 14B: 37.3 (#195)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 31.6% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 14B: 29.6 (#83)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 41% |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 14B: 18.5 (#280)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | 138.23 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 49.1% |
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 4% |
| DTBench | — | 64% |
| LMCA | — | 18.2% |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math Qwen3 14B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3 14B: 38.6 (#133)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.4% |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 14B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3 14B: 39.3 (#134)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | 63.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.4% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 14B: 38.1 (#204)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 14B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 62.5% |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3 14B?
Qwen3 14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 35.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3 14B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (36.8 vs 37.3); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3 14B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 14B has 12.