Qwen2.5 VL 72B is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the one area where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen2.5 VL 72B pulls ahead
Where Phi 4 Multimodal Instruct pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
Images and chartsQwen2.5 VL 72B
Other results9 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- TextVQA-valQwen2.5 VL 72B by 43.439.983.3+43.4
- MV-BenchQwen2.5 VL 72B by 25.544.970.4+25.5
- LVBenchQwen2.5 VL 72B by 2225.347.3+22
- ChartQAQwen2.5 VL 72B by 8.181.489.5+8.1
- AI2DQwen2.5 VL 72B by 6.182.388.4+6.1
- DocVQAQwen2.5 VL 72B by 3.293.296.4+3.2
- DocVQA-valQwen2.5 VL 72B by 392.895.8+3
- POPEPhi 4 Multimodal Instruct by 2.285.683.3+2.2
- MMBenchQwen2.5 VL 72B by 1.386.788+1.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Phi 4 Multimodal Instruct or Qwen2.5 VL 72B?
Qwen2.5 VL 72B wins the one area where both have results: images and charts. Phi 4 Multimodal Instruct wins none.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 6 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 9 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.