Model comparison

Llama 3.1-70B vs Phi-4 Mini

Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-4 Mini score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.4 vs 30.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-70B Meta

29.4

Rank #299 Confirmed

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.4

Rank #280 Reported

Summary

  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $0.40 for Llama 3.1-70B.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-4 Mini specifications
Llama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
ProviderMetaMicrosoft
Noometry Index29.430.4
Released2024-07-232024-12-11
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K128K
Max output4K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$0.075
Output $ / M tokens$0.40$0.30
Results tracked353

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

Category by category

Coding Llama 3.1-70B leads

Llama 3.1-70B: 29.8 (#292), Phi-4 Mini: 27.6 (#312)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
SciCode—10.8%
WeirdML9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46.1%—
LMArena Coding1260—
BigCodeBench Complete54.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.9 (#104), Phi-4 Mini: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
TheAgentCompany6.9%—
BALROG27.9%—

Reasoning Too close to call

Llama 3.1-70B: 20.8 (#215), Phi-4 Mini: 21.7 (#190)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
CritPt—0%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
DTBench60%—
LMCA14.8%—
Epoch Capabilities Index125.91—

Math Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 12.7 (#298), Phi-4 Mini: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20253.6%—
Omni-MATH21%—
LMArena Math1252—
MATH Level 536.7%—

Knowledge Too close to call

Llama 3.1-70B: 24.1 (#264), Phi-4 Mini: 24.8 (#261)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
GPQA Diamond44.2%—
MMLU-Pro65.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—23.5%
GPQA (HELM)42.6%—
LMArena Expert1209—
MMLU80.1%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 38.9 (#220), Phi-4 Mini: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Non-English1219—
LMArena Chinese1215—
LMArena French1260—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1132—
LMArena Korean1140—
LMArena Russian1234—
LMArena Spanish1253—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 65.5 (#218), Phi-4 Mini: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
IFEval82.1%—
LMArena Instruction Following1231—

Long Context Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 37.6 (#208), Phi-4 Mini: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Longer Query1241—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Llama 3.1-70B: 35.6 (#262), Phi-4 Mini: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkLlama 3.1-70BPhi-4 Mini
LMArena Text1261—
LMArena Creative Writing1232—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing784—
WildBench75.8%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1256—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-70B better than Phi-4 Mini?

Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-4 Mini score almost the same on the Noometry Index (29.4 vs 30.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, Llama 3.1-70B or Phi-4 Mini?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Llama 3.1-70B lists at $0.40 and $0.40.

Is Llama 3.1-70B or Phi-4 Mini better for coding?

Llama 3.1-70B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 29.8 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Both accept 128K tokens.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-70B and Phi-4 Mini share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-70B has 35 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 Mini has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper