# Llama 3.1-70B vs Phi-1.5

> Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#299); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/llama-3-1-70b-vs-phi-1-5
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both.

## Snapshot

| | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 29.4 | — |
| Rank | 299 | — |
| Context | 128K | — |
| Input $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Output $/M | $0.40 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Llama 3.1-70B: 29.8 (#292)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 9% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.1% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1260 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 54.8% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.9 (#104)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 6.9% | — |
| BALROG | 27.9% | — |

## Reasoning

- Llama 3.1-70B: 20.8 (#215)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.91 | 90.82 |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | — |
| DTBench | 60% | — |
| LMCA | 14.8% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 47.6% |
| WinoGrande | — | 73.4% |

## Math

- Llama 3.1-70B: 12.7 (#298)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 3.6% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 21% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1252 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 36.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- Llama 3.1-70B: 24.1 (#264)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 80.1% | 37.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 65.3% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 42.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1209 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 44.4% |
| BoolQ | — | 75.8% |
| OpenBookQA | — | 37.2% |

## Multilingual

- Llama 3.1-70B: 38.9 (#220)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1219 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1215 | — |
| LMArena French | 1260 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1132 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1140 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1234 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1253 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Llama 3.1-70B: 65.5 (#218)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 82.1% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1231 | — |

## Long Context

- Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#208)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1241 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Llama 3.1-70B: 35.6 (#262)
- Phi-1.5: —

| Benchmark | Llama 3.1-70B | Phi-1.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1261 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1232 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 784 | — |
| WildBench | 75.8% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1256 | — |

## FAQ

### Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Phi-1.5?

Llama 3.1-70B has enough public results to be ranked (#299); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-1.5 share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.