Model comparison

Llama 2-13B vs Phi-4

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

Llama 2-13B Meta

29.1

Rank #304 Confirmed

Phi-4 Microsoft

30.9

Rank #269 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 2-13B scores higher in 1 category and Phi-4 in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in multilingual, where Phi-4 leads 37.4 to 26.7.

Side by side

Llama 2-13B and Phi-4 specifications
Llama 2-13BPhi-4
ProviderMetaMicrosoft
Noometry Index29.130.9
Released2023-07-182024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—128K
Max output—4K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.07
Output $ / M tokens—$0.14
Results tracked3237

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

Category by category

Coding Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 30.4 (#287), Phi-4: 33.8 (#237)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Coding10621231
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.5%
LiveBench Coding—30.7%
BigCodeBench Complete—55.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 2-13B: —, Phi-4: 22.6 (#120)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.8%
BALROG—11.6%

Reasoning Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 12.3 (#333), Phi-4: 17.0 (#287)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
Chess Puzzles0%1%
LMArena Hard Prompts10511220
Epoch Capabilities Index105.8130.43
LiveBench Reasoning—47.8%
DTBench42.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—45.2%
BIG-Bench Hard58.2%—
HellaSwag80.7%—
LAMBADA76.5%—
LiveBench—41.6%
PIQA80.8%—
WinoGrande72.8%—

Math Llama 2-13B leads

Llama 2-13B: 28.7 (#226), Phi-4: 19.6 (#279)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Math10651246
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—13.8%
LiveBench Math—42%
MATH Level 5—64.9%
GSM8K36.9%—

Knowledge Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 27.5 (#244), Phi-4: 32.5 (#204)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Expert10301203
MMLU55.6%84.8%
GPQA Diamond—56.1%
Confabulations—29.4%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—3.7%
ARC (AI2) Challenge60.3%—
BoolQ82.4%—
OpenBookQA57%—
TriviaQA79.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Llama 2-13B: —, Phi-4: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
ScienceQA55.8%—

Multilingual Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 26.7 (#274), Phi-4: 37.4 (#232)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Non-English10241197
LMArena Chinese10011211
LMArena French10431223
LMArena German10091222
LMArena Japanese8941158
LMArena Korean9531151
LMArena Russian10551209
LMArena Spanish10861234

Instruction Following Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 53.5 (#282), Phi-4: 60.6 (#246)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Instruction Following10461201
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.4%

Long Context Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#264), Phi-4: 36.9 (#221)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Longer Query10641217

Writing & Preference Phi-4 leads

Llama 2-13B: 30.0 (#284), Phi-4: 40.7 (#239)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 2-13BPhi-4
LMArena Text10851217
LMArena Creative Writing10471182
LMArena Multi-Turn10501206
Short-Story Creative Writing—62.6%
LiveBench Language—25.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 2-13B better than Phi-4?

Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 2-13B or Phi-4 better for coding?

Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 30.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 2-13B and Phi-4 share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-13B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper