LLaMA 3.1 70B vs Phi-3 Medium
Comprehensive comparison of two leading open-source AI models
LLaMA 3.1 70B
ProviderMeta
Parameters70B
KYI Score9.1/10
LicenseLLaMA 3.1 Community License
Phi-3 Medium
ProviderMicrosoft
Parameters14B
KYI Score8.3/10
LicenseMIT
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | LLaMA 3.1 70B | Phi-3 Medium |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Microsoft |
| Parameters | 70B | 14B |
| KYI Score | 9.1/10 | 8.3/10 |
| Speed | 7/10 | 9/10 |
| Quality | 9/10 | 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 70B7/10
Phi-3 Medium9/10
QualityHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 70B9/10
Phi-3 Medium7/10
Cost EffectivenessHigher is better
LLaMA 3.1 70B9/10
Phi-3 Medium10/10
LLaMA 3.1 70B Strengths
- ✓Great performance-to-size ratio
- ✓Production-ready
- ✓Versatile
- ✓Cost-effective
LLaMA 3.1 70B Limitations
- ✗Slightly lower quality than 405B
- ✗Still requires substantial resources
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 70B
ChatbotsContent generationCode assistanceAnalysisSummarization
Phi-3 Medium
Edge deploymentMobile appsChatbotsCode assistance
Which Should You Choose?
Choose LLaMA 3.1 70B if you need great performance-to-size ratio and prioritize production-ready.
Choose Phi-3 Medium if you need excellent efficiency and prioritize mit license.