Model comparison

phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

phi-3-medium 14B Microsoft

29.7

Rank #306 Reported

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.6 to 9.1.

Side by side

phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3.8 27B specifications
phi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.746.0
Released2024-04-232026-08-14
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—33K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.99
Output $ / M tokens—$1.49
Results tracked1331

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena WebDev—1593
SciCode—46.6%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.6%—
LMArena Coding—1482
BigCodeBench Complete48.7%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
APEX-Agents—47.5%

Reasoning Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
Epoch Capabilities Index121.23149.38
ARC-AGI-2—42.4%
NYT Connections (extended)—54.5%
ARC-AGI-1—87.5%
CritPt—5.4%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460
DTBench—88%
LMCA—41.4%
Surface Evolver Bench—45%
Adversarial NLI55.8%—
BIG-Bench Hard81.4%—
HellaSwag82.4%—
WinoGrande81.5%—

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161)

Math benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
ProofBench—16%
LMArena Math—1456
MATH Level 517.6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
GPQA Diamond27.6%—
LMArena Expert—1482
ARC (AI2) Challenge91.6%—
MMLU78%—
OpenBookQA87.4%—
TriviaQA73.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Vision—1271

Multilingual Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Non-English—1430
LMArena Chinese—1504
LMArena French—1465
LMArena German—1438
LMArena Japanese—1384
LMArena Korean—1393
LMArena Russian—1415
LMArena Spanish—1448

Instruction Following Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Instruction Following—1439

Long Context Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Longer Query—1450

Writing & Preference Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 27B
LMArena Text—1441
LMArena Creative Writing—1384
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1671
LMArena Multi-Turn—1441

Frequently asked questions

Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3.8 27B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper