Model comparison
Phi-3.5-mini vs Qwen3 32B
Qwen3 32B has enough public results to be ranked (#166); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3 32B leads 37.3 to 34.0.
Side by side
| Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 36.4 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-08-16 | 2025-04 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 131K |
| Max output | — | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.70 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.80 |
| Results tracked | 5 | 26 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3 32B leads
Phi-3.5-mini: 34.0 (#231), Qwen3 32B: 37.3 (#184)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 40% |
| SciCode | — | 35.4% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.8% | — |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1358 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 38.5% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 32.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 48.7% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 19.6 (#233)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 54.9% |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1335 |
| DTBench | — | 67.5% |
| LMCA | — | 17.3% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 138.51 |
| PIQA | 81% | — |
Math Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 37.9 (#89)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 66.9% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1399 |
| GSM8K | 86.2% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 65.7% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 5.9% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1362 |
| BoolQ | 78% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 45.8 (#162)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1317 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1357 |
| LMArena German | — | 1341 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1311 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 69.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1305 |
Long Context Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 43.7 (#83)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 74.2% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1327 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3 32B: 53.1 (#158)
| Benchmark | Phi-3.5-mini | Qwen3 32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1340 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1297 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1331 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-3.5-mini better than Qwen3 32B?
Qwen3 32B has enough public results to be ranked (#166); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.
Is Phi-3.5-mini or Qwen3 32B better for coding?
Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.3 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Phi-3.5-mini and Qwen3 32B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-3.5-mini has 5 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.