Noometry

Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen3.5-9B

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-9B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.8

Rank #236 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-9B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 34.8 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 13.8% for Phi-4 and 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $0.10 / $0.15 for Qwen3.5-9B.
  • Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

Phi-4Qwen3.5-9B
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.233.8
Released2024-12-112026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output4K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.07$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$0.14$0.15
Results tracked3710

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads

Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
SciCode—27.5%
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
LMArena Coding1231—
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Phi-4 leads

Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-Bench—9.2%
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%—
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads

Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
Chess Puzzles1%12%
Epoch Capabilities Index130.42139.46
CritPt—0.3%
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1220—
DTBench—71.2%
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
LMCA—24.5%
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Qwen3.5-9B leads

Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%61.7%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—48.5%
LiveBench Math42%—
LMArena Math1246—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads

Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond56.1%79%
Confabulations29.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%—
LMArena Expert1203—
MMLU84.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Non-English1197—
LMArena Chinese1212—
LMArena French1224—
LMArena German1222—
LMArena Japanese1158—
LMArena Korean1151—
LMArena Russian1209—
LMArena Spanish1234—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-4: 60.4 (#251), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1201—

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Longer Query1217—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen3.5-9B: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.5-9B
LMArena Text1217—
LMArena Creative Writing1182—
Short-Story Creative Writing62.6%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1206—
LiveBench Language25.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 better than Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen3.5-9B?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B lists at $0.10 and $0.15.

Is Phi-4 or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?

Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen3.5-9B share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper