Noometry

Model comparison

Phi-4 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 38.3 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 13.8% for Phi-4 and 86.7% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.07 / $0.14 for Phi-4.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Phi-4 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Phi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.239.9
Released2024-12-112026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.07$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$0.14$0.13
Results tracked377

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Phi-4: 34.4 (#239), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct45.5%—
LiveBench Coding30.7%—
LMArena Coding1231—
BigCodeBench Complete55.4%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Phi-4: 22.8 (#128), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard28.8%—
BALROG11.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Phi-4: 17.7 (#291), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
Chess Puzzles1%23%
Epoch Capabilities Index130.42144.64
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
LiveBench Reasoning47.8%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1220—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
LiveBench Data Analysis45.2%—
LiveBench41.6%—

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Phi-4: 20.8 (#285), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202513.8%86.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
LiveBench Math42%—
LMArena Math1246—
MATH Level 564.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Phi-4: 32.6 (#209), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond56.1%82.3%
Confabulations29.4%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate3.7%—
LMArena Expert1203—
MMLU84.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-4: 37.2 (#237), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LiveBench Instruction Following58.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1201—

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-4: 36.9 (#226), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1217—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-4: 40.5 (#244), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkPhi-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1217—
LMArena Creative Writing1182—
Short-Story Creative Writing62.6%—
LMArena Multi-Turn1206—
LiveBench Language25.6%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-4 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Phi-4 lists at $0.07 and $0.14.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper