LLaMA 3.1 405B vs Phi-3 Medium
Comprehensive comparison of two leading open-source AI models
LLaMA 3.1 405B
ProviderMeta
Parameters405B
KYI Score9.4/10
LicenseLLaMA 3.1 Community License
Phi-3 Medium
ProviderMicrosoft
Parameters14B
KYI Score8.3/10
LicenseMIT
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | LLaMA 3.1 405B | Phi-3 Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Parameters | 405B | 14B |
| KYI Score | 9.4/10 | 8.3/10 |
| Speed | 6/10 | 9/10 |
| Quality | 10/10 | 7/10 |
| Cost Efficiency | 9/10 | 10/10 |
| License | LLaMA 3.1 Community License | MIT |
| Context Length | 128K tokens | 128K tokens |
| Pricing | free | free |
Performance Comparison
SpeedHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 405B6/10
Phi-3 Medium9/10
QualityHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 405B10/10
Phi-3 Medium7/10
Cost EffectivenessHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 405B9/10
Phi-3 Medium10/10
LLaMA 3.1 405B Strengths
- ✓Exceptional reasoning
- ✓Strong coding abilities
- ✓Multilingual
- ✓Long context window
LLaMA 3.1 405B Limitations
- ✗Requires significant compute
- ✗Large model size
- ✗Slower inference
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
LLaMA 3.1 405B
Complex reasoningCode generationResearchContent creationTranslation
Phi-3 Medium
Edge deploymentMobile appsChatbotsCode assistance
Which Should You Choose?
Choose LLaMA 3.1 405B if you need exceptional reasoning and prioritize strong coding abilities.
Choose Phi-3 Medium if you need excellent efficiency and prioritize mit license.