Model comparison

Phi-3.5-mini vs Qwen3.8 Max

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Phi-3.5-mini Microsoft

36.4

Unranked Sparse

Qwen3.8 Max Alibaba (Qwen)

56.0

Rank #21 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 52.3 to 34.0.
  • Phi-3.5-mini has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Phi-3.5-mini and Qwen3.8 Max specifications
Phi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
ProviderMicrosoftAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index36.456.0
Released2024-08-162026-08-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—131K
Input $ / M tokens—$2
Output $ / M tokens—$6
Results tracked538

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 Max leads

Phi-3.5-mini: 34.0 (#231), Qwen3.8 Max: 52.3 (#30)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
DeepSWE—57.5%
LMArena WebDev—1671
FrontierSWE—15.8%
SciCode—52.9%
BigCodeBench Instruct32.8%—
LMArena Coding—1499
BigCodeBench Complete38.5%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 42.6 (#17)

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
τ²-bench Banking—55.1%
GDP.pdf—23.2%

Reasoning Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 53.4 (#26)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
NYT Connections (extended)—88.3%
CritPt—20%
Chess Puzzles—40%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1493
Mystery Game Puzzles—38%
DTBench—92%
LMCA—46.2%
Epoch Capabilities Index—156.69
PIQA81%—

Math Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 73.1 (#15)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—74.7%
FrontierMath Tier 4—46.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—100%
ProofBench—58%
LMArena Math—1498
GSM8K86.2%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#25)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
GPQA Diamond—92.7%
SimpleQA Verified—47.3%
LMArena Expert—1504
BoolQ78%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 36.9 (#70)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Vision—1314
Furniture Assembly—20%

Multilingual Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 56.6 (#18)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Non-English—1468
LMArena Chinese—1537
LMArena French—1502
LMArena German—1489
LMArena Japanese—1466
LMArena Korean—1467
LMArena Russian—1478
LMArena Spanish—1495

Instruction Following Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 77.7 (#19)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Instruction Following—1478

Long Context Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 45.5 (#30)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Longer Query—1486

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Phi-3.5-mini: —, Qwen3.8 Max: 67.0 (#31)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkPhi-3.5-miniQwen3.8 Max
LMArena Text—1480
LMArena Creative Writing—1478
LMArena Multi-Turn—1487

Frequently asked questions

Is Phi-3.5-mini better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max has enough public results to be ranked (#21); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Phi-3.5-mini or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.3 versus 34.0 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Phi-3.5-mini and Qwen3.8 Max share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-3.5-mini has 5 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 38.

Related comparisons

Go deeper