Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3.5 27B
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.0 to 9.1.
Side by side
| phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| WeirdML | — | 39.5% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1427 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1414 |
| DTBench | — | 82.4% |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math Qwen3.5 27B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1429 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1428 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1241 |
Multilingual Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1410 |
| LMArena German | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1407 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1393 |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1410 |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3.5 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.