Model comparison
Phi-4 Mini vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.2 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 35B-A3B'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 35B-A3B in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.4 to 24.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SciCode: 10.8% for Phi-4 Mini and 35.8% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Phi-4 Mini is cheaper at $0.075 / $0.30 per million input/output tokens, against $0.25 / $1.49 for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.4 | 37.2 |
| Released | 2024-12-11 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Max output | 4K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.075 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 27.6 (#312), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 36.7 (#190)
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 21.9 (#126)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 21.7 (#190), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 27.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0% | 0.3% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 26% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| DTBench | — | 73.9% |
| LMCA | — | 29.7% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.92 |
Math Not comparable
Phi-4 Mini: —, Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.9 (#90)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
Phi-4 Mini: 24.8 (#261), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 84.8% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 23.5% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-4 Mini better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is the stronger model overall, scoring 37.2 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 Mini costs 4.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 35B-A3B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Phi-4 Mini is cheaper. It lists at $0.075 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B-A3B lists at $0.25 and $1.49.
Is Phi-4 Mini or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 36.7 versus 27.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Phi-4 Mini and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 Mini has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.