# phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen1.5-72B

> Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/phi-3-medium-14b-vs-qwen1-5-72b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 3

## Summary

- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen1.5-72B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-72B leads 33.2 to 27.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 48.7% for phi-3-medium 14B and 40.3% for Qwen1.5-72B.

## Snapshot

| | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.7 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 306 | 285 |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 37.6% | 33.2% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 48.7% | 40.3% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1165 |
| HumanEval+ | — | 59.1% |
| MBPP+ | — | 61.6% |

## Reasoning

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1148 |
| Adversarial NLI | 55.8% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 81.4% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 121.23 | — |
| HellaSwag | 82.4% | — |
| WinoGrande | 81.5% | — |

## Math

- phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | — | 1164 |
| MATH Level 5 | 17.6% | — |

## Knowledge

- phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306)
- Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 27.6% | 28.8% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1136 |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 91.6% | — |
| MMLU | 78% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 87.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 73.9% | — |

## Multilingual

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1135 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1186 |
| LMArena French | — | 1159 |
| LMArena German | — | 1084 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1061 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1050 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1104 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1110 |

## Instruction Following

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1141 |

## Long Context

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- phi-3-medium 14B: —
- Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

| Benchmark | phi-3-medium 14B | Qwen1.5-72B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1166 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1137 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1160 |

## FAQ

### Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Qwen1.5-72B is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

phi-3-medium 14B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.8 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen1.5-72B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.