Model comparison

Phi-3.5-mini vs QwQ-32B

QwQ-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#159); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.

Phi-3.5-mini Microsoft

36.9

Unranked Sparse

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-3.5-mini scores higher in 0 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category, but none of those gaps is larger than the uncertainty.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 38.5% for Phi-3.5-mini and 54.4% for QwQ-32B.

Side by side

Phi-3.5-mini and QwQ-32B specifications
Phi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.939.8
Released2024-08-162024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window——
Max output——
Input $ / M tokens——
Output $ / M tokens——
Results tracked536

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Phi-3.5-mini: 34.6 (#232), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
BigCodeBench Instruct32.8%44.6%
BigCodeBench Complete38.5%54.4%
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
LMArena Coding—1333

Reasoning Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1325
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%
PIQA81%—

Math Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%
LMArena Math—1359
GSM8K86.2%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
LMArena Expert—1324
BoolQ78%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English—1305
LMArena Chinese—1378
LMArena French—1336
LMArena German—1313
LMArena Japanese—1262
LMArena Korean—1279
LMArena Russian—1297
LMArena Spanish—1354

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%
LMArena Instruction Following—1297

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%
LMArena Longer Query—1308

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwQ-32B
LMArena Text—1329
LMArena Creative Writing—1288
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LMArena Multi-Turn—1314
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-3.5-mini better than QwQ-32B?

QwQ-32B has enough public results to be ranked (#159); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Phi-3.5-mini or QwQ-32B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (34.6 vs 35.4); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do Phi-3.5-mini and QwQ-32B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-3.5-mini has 5 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper