Model comparison
Phi-4 vs Qwen Turbo
Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Microsoft
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Phi-4 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen Turbo in 0 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Phi-4 leads 32.5 to 22.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 56.1% for Phi-4 and 41.8% for Qwen Turbo.
- Both cost about the same: $0.07 input and $0.14 output per million tokens.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
- Phi-4 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.9 | 26.8 |
| Released | 2024-12-11 | 2024-11-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 4K | 16K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.07 | $0.05 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.14 | $0.20 |
| Results tracked | 37 | 3 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Phi-4: 33.8 (#237), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45.5% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 30.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1231 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 55.4% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Phi-4: 22.6 (#120), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 28.8% | — |
| BALROG | 11.6% | — |
Reasoning Not comparable
Phi-4: 17.0 (#287), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 1% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 47.8% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1220 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 45.2% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.43 | — |
| LiveBench | 41.6% | — |
Math Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 19.6 (#279), Qwen Turbo: 14.5 (#291)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 13.8% | 6.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 64.9% | 56.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 42% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1246 | — |
Knowledge Phi-4 leads
Phi-4: 32.5 (#204), Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 56.1% | 41.8% |
| Confabulations | 29.4% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1203 | — |
| MMLU | 84.8% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Phi-4: 37.4 (#232), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1197 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1211 | — |
| LMArena French | 1223 | — |
| LMArena German | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1158 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1151 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1209 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1234 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Phi-4: 60.6 (#246), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1201 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Phi-4: 36.9 (#221), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1217 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Phi-4: 40.7 (#239), Qwen Turbo: —
| Benchmark | Phi-4 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1217 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1182 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 62.6% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1206 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 25.6% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Phi-4 better than Qwen Turbo?
Phi-4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 30.9 to 26.8 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Phi-4 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Phi-4 lists at $0.07 and $0.14.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Phi-4 and Qwen Turbo share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Phi-4 has 37 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Turbo has 3.