Side-by-side benchmark comparison across knowledge, coding, math, and reasoning.
Llama 3.1 405B is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 65 to 39. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Llama 3.1 405B's sharpest advantage is in multilingual, where it averages 84 against 80.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HumanEval, 62 to 82.6. Phi-4 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Llama 3.1 405B gives you the larger context window at 128K, compared with 16K for Phi-4.
Pick Llama 3.1 405B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Phi-4 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Llama 3.1 405B
58.7
Phi-4
70.5
Llama 3.1 405B
48.3
Phi-4
82.6
Llama 3.1 405B
84
Phi-4
80.6
Llama 3.1 405B is ahead overall, 65 to 39. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HumanEval, where the scores are 62 and 82.6.
Phi-4 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 70.5 versus 58.7. Inside this category, MMLU is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Phi-4 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 82.6 versus 48.3. Inside this category, HumanEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Llama 3.1 405B has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84 versus 80.6. Inside this category, MGSM is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.