Model comparison
Llama 2-13B vs Phi-4 Mini
Phi-4 Mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
MicrosoftSummary
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Phi-4 Mini leads 22.4 to 12.8.
Side by side
| Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 29.6 | 30.9 |
| Released | 2023-07-18 | 2024-12-11 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 128K |
| Max output | — | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.075 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Results tracked | 32 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Llama 2-13B leads
Llama 2-13B: 30.9 (#291), Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 10.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1062 | — |
Reasoning Phi-4 Mini leads
Llama 2-13B: 12.8 (#337), Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0% |
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1051 | — |
| DTBench | 42.2% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 58.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 106.17 | — |
| HellaSwag | 80.7% | — |
| LAMBADA | 76.5% | — |
| PIQA | 80.8% | — |
| WinoGrande | 72.8% | — |
Math Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: 31.1 (#229), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1065 | — |
| GSM8K | 36.9% | — |
Knowledge Llama 2-13B leads
Llama 2-13B: 28.1 (#249), Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262)
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 23.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1030 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 60.3% | — |
| BoolQ | 82.4% | — |
| MMLU | 55.6% | — |
| OpenBookQA | 57% | — |
| TriviaQA | 79.6% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: —, Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| ScienceQA | 55.8% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: 26.5 (#279), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1024 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1001 | — |
| LMArena French | 1044 | — |
| LMArena German | 1009 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 894 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 953 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1055 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1087 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: 53.3 (#287), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1045 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: 32.3 (#269), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1064 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Llama 2-13B: 29.8 (#289), Phi-4 Mini: —
| Benchmark | Llama 2-13B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1084 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1047 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1050 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Llama 2-13B better than Phi-4 Mini?
Phi-4 Mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 29.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Llama 2-13B or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?
Llama 2-13B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 30.9 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Llama 2-13B and Phi-4 Mini share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 2-13B has 32 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.