Noometry

Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct Alibaba (Qwen)

29.9

Rank #302 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in agentic & tool use, where Phi-4 leads 22.8 to 18.6.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $2.80 / $8.40 for Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct.
  • Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Phi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.229.9
Released2024-12-112024-09
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K8K
Input $ / M tokens$0.07$2.80
Output $ / M tokens$0.14$8.40
Results tracked376

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
LMArena Coding1231—
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 18.6 (#144)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%—
OSWorld—5%
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct leads

Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 20.7 (#233)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
Kagi LLM Benchmark—36%
Chess Puzzles1%—
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1220—
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.42—
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Not comparable

Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%—
LiveBench Math42%—
LMArena Math1246—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
GPQA Diamond56.1%—
Confabulations29.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%—
LMArena Expert1203—
MMLU84.8%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Phi-4: —, Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: 33.5 (#97)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Vision—1107
Video-MME—73.5%
GeoBench—62%
SpatialViz-Bench—33.3%

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Non-English1197—
LMArena Chinese1212—
LMArena French1224—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1158—
LMArena Korean1151—
LMArena Russian1209—
LMArena Spanish1234—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1201—

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct
LMArena Longer Query1217—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen2.5-VL 72B 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-VL 72B Instruct?

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 31.2 to 29.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct lists at $2.80 and $8.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-VL 72B Instruct has 6.

Related comparisons

Go deeper