Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen1.5-7B

Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (31.2 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Phi-4 leads 40.5 to 29.6.

Side by side

Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-7B specifications
Phi-4Qwen1.5-7B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.231.4
Released2024-12-112024-02-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K—
Max output4K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.07—
Output $ / M tokens$0.14—
Results tracked3713

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

Category by category

Coding Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Coding12311107
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen1.5-7B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%—
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Qwen1.5-7B leads

Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts12201065
Chess Puzzles1%—
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index130.42—
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Qwen1.5-7B leads

Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Math12461080
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%—
LiveBench Math42%—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Expert12031055
MMLU84.8%62.6%
GPQA Diamond56.1%—
Confabulations29.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%—

Multilingual Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Non-English11971058
LMArena Chinese12121141
LMArena Russian12091006
LMArena French1224—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1158—
LMArena Korean1151—
LMArena Spanish1234—

Instruction Following Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Instruction Following12011058
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—

Long Context Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Longer Query12171090

Writing & Preference Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Text12171083
LMArena Creative Writing11821035
LMArena Multi-Turn12061062
Short-Story Creative Writing62.6%—
LiveBench Language25.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-7B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (31.2 vs 31.4), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is Phi-4 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.4 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper