Noometry

Model comparison

phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3.7 Max

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

phi-3-medium 14B Microsoft

29.7

Rank #306 Reported

Qwen3.7 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #42 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Max in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Max leads 61.6 to 9.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B and 90.9% for Qwen3.7 Max.
  • phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

phi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.751.5
Released2024-04-232026-05-19
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2.50
Output $ / M tokens—$7.50
Results tracked1333

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.7 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen3.7 Max: 50.4 (#45)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
SWE-bench Verified—77.3%
LMArena WebDev—1515
SciCode—48.8%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.6%—
LMArena Coding—1498
BigCodeBench Complete48.7%—
ALE-Bench—1,189

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 22.1 (#135)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
GBAEval—0.4%

Reasoning Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 49.2 (#38)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
Epoch Capabilities Index121.23153.68
SimpleBench—70.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—85.1%
CritPt—13.4%
Chess Puzzles—19%
EBR-Bench—9.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1483
Mystery Game Puzzles—32%
DTBench—92.3%
LMCA—44%
Adversarial NLI55.8%—
BIG-Bench Hard81.4%—
HellaSwag82.4%—
WinoGrande81.5%—

Math Qwen3.7 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3.7 Max: 62.4 (#32)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—64.6%
FrontierMath Tier 4—34.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—95.6%
ProofBench—26%
LMArena Math—1490
MATH Level 517.6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3.7 Max: 61.6 (#28)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
GPQA Diamond27.6%90.9%
SimpleQA Verified—55.8%
LMArena Expert—1488
ARC (AI2) Challenge91.6%—
MMLU78%—
OpenBookQA87.4%—
TriviaQA73.9%—

Multilingual Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 56.9 (#15)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Non-English—1474
LMArena Chinese—1530
LMArena Russian—1484

Instruction Following Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 76.7 (#38)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1460

Long Context Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 45.4 (#40)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1482

Writing & Preference Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.7 Max: 65.0 (#54)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.7 Max
LMArena Text—1476
LMArena Creative Writing—1449
EQ-Bench 4—1110
LMArena Multi-Turn—1481

Frequently asked questions

Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3.7 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.7 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.4 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3.7 Max share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Max has 33.

Related comparisons

Go deeper