Model comparison

Phi-4 Mini vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 5.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Mini Microsoft

30.9

Rank #283 Reported

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.4

Rank #245 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads 33.4 to 25.3.
  • Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
  • Phi-4 Mini accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.

Side by side

Phi-4 Mini and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B specifications
Phi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.933.4
Released2024-12-112024-09-18
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K33K
Max output4K29K
Input $ / M tokens$0.075$0.66
Output $ / M tokens$0.30$1
Results tracked331

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

Category by category

Coding Phi-4 Mini leads

Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)—9%
Aider Polyglot—16.4%
SciCode10.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—49%
LiveBench Coding—56.9%
LMArena Coding—1276
BigCodeBench Complete—58%
HumanEval+—87.2%
MBPP+—77%

Reasoning Phi-4 Mini leads

Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
CritPt0%—
LiveBench Reasoning—42.1%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1251
LiveBench Data Analysis—49.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index—119.49
HellaSwag—83%
LiveBench—46.2%
WinoGrande—80.8%

Math Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Math—46.6%
LMArena Math—1251
GSM8K—93%

Knowledge Qwen2.5-Coder-32B leads

Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262), Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
Vectara Hallucination Rate23.5%—
LMArena Expert—1221
ARC (AI2) Challenge—70.5%
MMLU—79.1%

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Non-English—1205
LMArena Chinese—1222
LMArena Russian—1228

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.7%
LMArena Instruction Following—1223

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Longer Query—1251

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-4 MiniQwen2.5-Coder-32B
LMArena Text—1230
LMArena Creative Writing—1174
LMArena Multi-Turn—1222
LiveBench Language—23.3%

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 Mini better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.4 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 5.7× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

Is Phi-4 Mini or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Phi-4 Mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 28.1 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Phi-4 Mini does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 Mini and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 Mini has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.

Related comparisons

Go deeper