Noometry

Model comparison

phi-3-medium 14B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

phi-3-medium 14B Microsoft

29.7

Rank #306 Reported

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.8

Rank #22 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. phi-3-medium 14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 Max in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 61.7 to 9.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 27.6% for phi-3-medium 14B and 92.7% for Qwen3.8 Max.
  • phi-3-medium 14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

phi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.756.8
Released2024-04-232026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked1339

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 36.8 (#201), Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1674
FrontierSWE—17.8%
SciCode—53.2%
BigCodeBench Instruct37.6%—
LMArena Coding—1502
BigCodeBench Complete48.7%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
APEX-Agents—63.3%
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
Epoch Capabilities Index121.23156.41
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1496
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Adversarial NLI55.8%—
BIG-Bench Hard81.4%—
HellaSwag82.4%—
WinoGrande81.5%—

Math Qwen3.8 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 27.3 (#250), Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%
LMArena Math—1499
MATH Level 517.6%—

Knowledge Qwen3.8 Max leads

phi-3-medium 14B: 9.1 (#306), Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond27.6%92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
LMArena Expert—1507
ARC (AI2) Challenge91.6%—
MMLU78%—
OpenBookQA87.4%—
TriviaQA73.9%—

Multimodal Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English—1472
LMArena Chinese—1538
LMArena French—1503
LMArena German—1483
LMArena Japanese—1467
LMArena Korean—1461
LMArena Russian—1481
LMArena Spanish—1492

Instruction Following Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1479

Long Context Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1489

Writing & Preference Not comparable

phi-3-medium 14B: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

Benchmarkphi-3-medium 14BQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text—1483
LMArena Creative Writing—1479
LMArena Multi-Turn—1489

Frequently asked questions

Is phi-3-medium 14B better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 29.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is phi-3-medium 14B or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 36.8 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do phi-3-medium 14B and Qwen3.8 Max share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. phi-3-medium 14B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.

Related comparisons

Go deeper