Model comparison
Phi-4 vs Qwen1.5-14B
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 32.4 to 20.8.
Side by side
| Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.2 | 32.7 |
| Released | 2024-12-11 | 2024-02-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.07 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Results tracked | 37 | 17 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1231 | 1138 |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 30.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 55.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen1.5-14B: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.8% | — |
| BALROG | 11.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-14B leads
Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1220 | 1113 |
| Chess Puzzles | 1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 47.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 45.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.42 | — |
| LiveBench | 41.6% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-14B leads
Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1246 | 1125 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 13.8% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 42% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 64.9% | — |
Knowledge Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1203 | 1094 |
| MMLU | 84.8% | 68.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 56.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 29.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.7% | — |
Multilingual Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1197 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1212 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1224 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1222 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1158 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1209 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1234 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1151 | — |
Instruction Following Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1201 | 1102 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.4% | — |
Long Context Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1217 | 1113 |
Writing & Preference Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1217 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1182 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1206 | 1110 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 62.6% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-4 better than Qwen1.5-14B?
Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.7 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Phi-4 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?
Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.4 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-14B share?
17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.