Model comparison
Phi-4 vs Qwen1.5-110B
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 33.7 to 20.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 55.4% for Phi-4 and 44.4% for Qwen1.5-110B.
Side by side
| Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.2 | 34.2 |
| Released | 2024-12-11 | 2024-04-25 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Max output | 4K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.07 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.14 | — |
| Results tracked | 37 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.0 (#264)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | 35% |
| LMArena Coding | 1231 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 55.4% | 44.4% |
| LiveBench Coding | 30.7% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen1.5-110B: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.8% | — |
| BALROG | 11.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen1.5-110B leads
Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen1.5-110B: 22.7 (#189)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1220 | 1168 |
| Chess Puzzles | 1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 47.8% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 45.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.42 | — |
| ForecastBench | — | 57.7 |
| LiveBench | 41.6% | — |
Math Qwen1.5-110B leads
Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.7 (#201)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1246 | 1185 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 13.8% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 42% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 64.9% | — |
Knowledge Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.2 (#219)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1203 | 1144 |
| GPQA Diamond | 56.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 29.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.7% | — |
| MMLU | 84.8% | — |
Multilingual Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.6 (#250)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1197 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1212 | 1206 |
| LMArena French | 1224 | 1151 |
| LMArena German | 1222 | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1158 | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | 1151 | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | 1209 | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1234 | 1142 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.3 (#252)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1201 | 1158 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.4% | — |
Long Context Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.1 (#242)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1217 | 1157 |
Writing & Preference Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.0 (#255)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1217 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1182 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1206 | 1160 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 62.6% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-4 better than Qwen1.5-110B?
Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Phi-4 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?
Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.4 versus 33.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-110B share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.