Model comparison
phi-3-medium 14B vs QwQ-32B
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 1 category and QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where QwQ-32B leads 37.2 to 9.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B and 65.3% for QwQ-32B.
Side by side
| phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 39.8 |
| Released | 2024-04-23 | 2024-11-28 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 13 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding phi-3-medium 14B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | 44.6% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | 54.4% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1333 |
Reasoning Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | 137.6 |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1325 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 58.3 |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |
Math QwQ-32B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 59.2% |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1359 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |
Knowledge QwQ-32B leads
phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | 65.3% |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1324 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1305 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1378 |
| LMArena French | — | 1336 |
| LMArena German | — | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1262 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1279 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1354 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1297 |
Long Context Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1308 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
phi-3-medium 14B: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)
| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1288 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1314 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is phi-3-medium 14B better than QwQ-32B?
QwQ-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is phi-3-medium 14B or QwQ-32B better for coding?
phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.8 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and QwQ-32B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.