Model comparison
Phi-4 Mini vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 Mini scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 25.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 10.8% for Phi-4 Mini and 37.3% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.9 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2024-12-11 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.075 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 28.1 (#317), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 10.8% | 37.3% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 22.4 (#195), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Not comparable
Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 25.3 (#262), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 23.5% | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-4 Mini better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 10× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.6 27B?
Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 28.1 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Phi-4 Mini and Qwen3.6 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 Mini has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.