Noometry

Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen2.5 14B Instruct

Phi-4 has enough public results to be ranked (#269); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

30.9

Rank #269 Confirmed

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

38.2

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct in 1 category; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads 37.1 to 33.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Instruct: 45.5% for Phi-4 and 39.8% for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $0.35 / $1.40 for Qwen2.5 14B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5 14B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Phi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.938.2
Released2024-12-112024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.07$0.35
Output $ / M tokens$0.14$1.40
Results tracked373

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5 14B Instruct leads

Phi-4: 33.8 (#237), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: 37.1 (#187)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%39.8%
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%52.2%
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
LMArena Coding1231—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Phi-4: 22.6 (#120), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%—
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Not comparable

Phi-4: 17.0 (#287), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
Chess Puzzles1%—
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1220—
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.43—
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Not comparable

Phi-4: 19.6 (#279), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%—
LiveBench Math42%—
LMArena Math1246—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Phi-4: 32.5 (#204), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
MMLU84.8%79.9%
GPQA Diamond56.1%—
Confabulations29.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%—
LMArena Expert1203—

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4: 37.4 (#232), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1197—
LMArena Chinese1211—
LMArena French1223—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1158—
LMArena Korean1151—
LMArena Russian1209—
LMArena Spanish1234—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-4: 60.6 (#246), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1201—

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4: 36.9 (#221), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1217—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4: 40.7 (#239), Qwen2.5 14B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5 14B Instruct
LMArena Text1217—
LMArena Creative Writing1182—
Short-Story Creative Writing62.6%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1206—
LiveBench Language25.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 better than Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Phi-4 has enough public results to be ranked (#269); Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 14B Instruct lists at $0.35 and $1.40.

Is Phi-4 or Qwen2.5 14B Instruct better for coding?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.1 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5 14B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 14B Instruct has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper