Noometry

Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen3 32B

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3 32B in 9 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3 32B leads 39.7 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 13.8% for Phi-4 and 66.9% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B accepts more context: 131K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Phi-4Qwen3 32B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.239.2
Released2024-12-112025-04
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K131K
Max output4K16K
Input $ / M tokens$0.07$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$0.14$2.80
Results tracked3726

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
LMArena Coding12311358
Aider Polyglot—40%
SciCode—35.4%
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%48.7%
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
Chess Puzzles1%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts12201334
Epoch Capabilities Index130.42138.51
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
CritPt—0.3%
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
DTBench—67.5%
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
LMCA—17.3%
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%66.9%
LMArena Math12461399
LiveBench Math42%—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond56.1%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%5.9%
LMArena Expert12031362
Confabulations29.4%—
MMLU84.8%—

Multilingual Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English11971317
LMArena Chinese12121357
LMArena German12221341
LMArena Russian12091311
LMArena French1224—
LMArena Japanese1158—
LMArena Korean1151—
LMArena Spanish1234—

Instruction Following Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following12011305
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—

Long Context Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query12171327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads

Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text12171340
LMArena Creative Writing11821297
LMArena Multi-Turn12061331
Short-Story Creative Writing62.6%—
LiveBench Language25.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 better than Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 14× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3 32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen3 32B?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Phi-4 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Qwen3 32B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 37.7 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3 32B does, with 131K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen3 32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper