Model comparison

Phi-4 Mini vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 6.3× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 10, 2026. 1 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Mini

Microsoft

30.9

Rank #283 Reported

Qwen3.5 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Phi-4 Mini scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.0 to 25.3.
The biggest single-benchmark swing is Vectara Hallucination Rate: 23.5% for Phi-4 Mini and 12.1% for Qwen3.5 27B.
Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Phi-4 Mini and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
Provider	Microsoft	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	30.9	41.9
Released	2024-12-11	2026-02-23
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	128K	262K
Max output	4K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.075	$0.30
Output $ / M tokens	$0.30	$2.40
Results tracked	3	28

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena WebDev	—	1358
SciCode	10.8%	—
WeirdML	—	39.5%
LMArena Coding	—	1427
ALE-Bench	—	349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2	—	201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)	—	47.9%
CritPt	0%	—
Thematic Generalization	—	45.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts	—	1414
DTBench	—	82.4%
LMCA	—	34%

Math Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions	—	56.7%
LMArena Math	—	1429

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate	23.5%	12.1%
LMArena Expert	—	1428

Multimodal Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision	—	1241

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English	—	1390
LMArena Chinese	—	1478
LMArena French	—	1410
LMArena German	—	1393
LMArena Japanese	—	1345
LMArena Korean	—	1358
LMArena Russian	—	1390
LMArena Spanish	—	1407

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	—	1393

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query	—	1413

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Phi-4 Mini	Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text	—	1409
LMArena Creative Writing	—	1362
LMArena Multi-Turn	—	1410

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 Mini better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.5 27B?

Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

Is Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 Mini and Qwen3.5 27B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Phi-4 Mini has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.