Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 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 32B in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3 32B leads 40.0 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B and 65.7% for Qwen3 32B.
Side by side
| phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 39.2 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 26 |
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 32B: 37.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | 138.51 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1334 |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math Qwen3 32B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (36.8 vs 37.7); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3 32B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.