Qwen 2.5 72B vs Phi-3 Medium
Comprehensive comparison of two leading open-source AI models
Qwen 2.5 72B
ProviderAlibaba Cloud
Parameters72B
KYI Score8.9/10
LicenseApache 2.0
Phi-3 Medium
ProviderMicrosoft
Parameters14B
KYI Score8.3/10
LicenseMIT
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | Qwen 2.5 72B | Phi-3 Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba Cloud | Microsoft |
| Parameters | 72B | 14B |
| KYI Score | 8.9/10 | 8.3/10 |
| Speed | 7/10 | 9/10 |
| Quality | 9/10 | 7/10 |
| Cost Efficiency | 9/10 | 10/10 |
| License | Apache 2.0 | MIT |
| Context Length | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Pricing | free | free |
Performance Comparison
SpeedHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B7/10
Phi-3 Medium9/10
QualityHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B9/10
Phi-3 Medium7/10
Cost EffectivenessHigher is better
Qwen 2.5 72B9/10
Phi-3 Medium10/10
Qwen 2.5 72B Strengths
- ✓Best-in-class Chinese support
- ✓Strong multilingual
- ✓Long context
- ✓Versatile
Qwen 2.5 72B Limitations
- ✗Less known in Western markets
- ✗Documentation primarily in Chinese
Phi-3 Medium Strengths
- ✓Excellent efficiency
- ✓MIT license
- ✓Long context
- ✓Fast
Phi-3 Medium Limitations
- ✗Lower quality than larger models
- ✗Limited capabilities
Best Use Cases
Qwen 2.5 72B
Multilingual applicationsAsian language tasksCode generationTranslation
Phi-3 Medium
Edge deploymentMobile appsChatbotsCode assistance
Which Should You Choose?
Choose Qwen 2.5 72B if you need best-in-class chinese support and prioritize strong multilingual.
Choose Phi-3 Medium if you need excellent efficiency and prioritize mit license.