# Phi-4 vs Qwen2.5-Coder-32B

> Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/phi-4-vs-qwen2-5-coder-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B in 7 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where Phi-4 leads 33.8 to 22.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LiveBench Coding: 30.7% for Phi-4 and 56.9% for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $0.66 / $1 for Qwen2.5-Coder-32B.
- Phi-4 accepts more context: 128K tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.9 | 32.9 |
| Rank | 269 | 239 |
| Context | 128K | 33K |
| Input $/M | $0.07 | $0.66 |
| Output $/M | $0.14 | $1 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Phi-4: 33.8 (#237)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | 49% |
| LiveBench Coding | 30.7% | 56.9% |
| LMArena Coding | 1231 | 1276 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 55.4% | 58% |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | — | 9% |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 16.4% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 87.2% |
| MBPP+ | — | 77% |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Phi-4: 22.6 (#120)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: —

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.8% | — |
| BALROG | 11.6% | — |

## Reasoning

- Phi-4: 17.0 (#287)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Reasoning | 47.8% | 42.1% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1220 | 1251 |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 45.2% | 49.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.43 | 119.41 |
| LiveBench | 41.6% | 46.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | 1% | — |
| HellaSwag | — | 83% |
| WinoGrande | — | 80.8% |

## Math

- Phi-4: 19.6 (#279)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Math | 42% | 46.6% |
| LMArena Math | 1246 | 1251 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 13.8% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 64.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 93% |

## Knowledge

- Phi-4: 32.5 (#204)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1203 | 1221 |
| MMLU | 84.8% | 79.1% |
| GPQA Diamond | 56.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 29.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.7% | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | — | 70.5% |

## Multilingual

- Phi-4: 37.4 (#232)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1197 | 1205 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1211 | 1222 |
| LMArena Russian | 1209 | 1228 |
| LMArena French | 1223 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1158 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1151 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1234 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Phi-4: 60.6 (#246)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.4% | 58.7% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1201 | 1223 |

## Long Context

- Phi-4: 36.9 (#221)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1217 | 1251 |

## Writing & Preference

- Phi-4: 40.7 (#239)
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235)

| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1217 | 1230 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1182 | 1174 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1206 | 1222 |
| LiveBench Language | 25.6% | 23.3% |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 62.6% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Phi-4 better than Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is the stronger model overall, scoring 32.9 to 30.9 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 8.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen2.5-Coder-32B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5-Coder-32B lists at $0.66 and $1.

### Is Phi-4 or Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better for coding?

Phi-4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.8 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Phi-4 does, with 128K tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31.