# phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen1.5-14B

> Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/phi-3-medium-14b-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen1.5-14B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen1.5-14B leads 29.3 to 9.1.

## Snapshot

| | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.1 | 32.1 |
| Rank | 306 | 250 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- phi-3-medium 14B: 36.3 (#198)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.5 (#259)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1138 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | — |

## Reasoning

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 20.5 (#217)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1113 |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.18 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |

## Math

- phi-3-medium 14B: 25.2 (#249)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.9 (#214)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1125 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#301)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.3 (#230)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU | 78% | 68.6% |
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1094 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.8 (#257)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1147 |
| LMArena French | — | 1115 |
| LMArena German | — | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1085 |

## Instruction Following

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 57.1 (#266)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1102 |

## Long Context

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#252)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1113 |

## Writing & Preference

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#270)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1110 |

## FAQ

### Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen1.5-14B?

Qwen1.5-14B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.1 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

### Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.3 versus 32.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen1.5-14B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.