# 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.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/phi-4-mini-vs-qwen3-6-35b-a3b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## 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.

## Snapshot

| | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.4 | 37.2 |
| Rank | 280 | 194 |
| Context | 128K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.075 | $0.25 |
| Output $/M | $0.30 | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Phi-4 Mini: 27.6 (#312)
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 36.7 (#190)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 10.8% | 35.8% |
| WeirdML | — | 34.5% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Phi-4 Mini: —
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 21.9 (#126)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 Mini | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |

## Reasoning

- 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

- 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

- 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% | — |

## FAQ

### 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.