ModelRefs / Phi-4 vs QwQ 32B — Benchmarks, Pricing & Coding Comparison
Phi-4 vs QwQ 32B — Benchmarks, Pricing & Coding Comparison
Phi-4 vs QwQ 32B: side-by-side benchmarks, pricing, context windows, coding ability and deployment. Pick the right model for your stack.
Overview
Phi-4: Microsoft's 14B dense decoder-only open-weight text model, trained on 9.8T tokens with a synthetic-data-centered curriculum and available through the microsoft/phi-4 artifact and Microsoft Foundry.
Context window: Phi-4 accepts up to 16,384 tokens, QwQ 32B up to 131,072. Confirm the limit for your specific deployment channel before relying on it.
Phi-4 vs QwQ 32B at a glance
| Attribute | Phi-4 | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Microsoft | Alibaba |
| Released | 2024-12-12 | 2025-03-06 |
| Context window | 16,384 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Input price | Free / self-hosted | $0.15/M tokens |
| Output price | Free / self-hosted | $0.6/M tokens |
| Licence | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-hostable | Yes, open weights | Yes, open weights |
| Modalities | text | text |
Where they differ most
- Cost Efficiency: Phi-4 100%, QwQ 32B 91%. Phi-4 leads on this dimension.
- Coding: Phi-4 67%, QwQ 32B 63%. Phi-4 leads on this dimension.
Capability scores are ModelRefs' own derived signals, not vendor claims or benchmark results. Validate against your own workload before relying on them.
Continue your research
Use these connected ModelRefs sections to compare alternatives, inspect implementation paths, and review the evidence and governance boundaries relevant to Phi-4 vs QwQ 32B — Benchmarks, Pricing & Coding Comparison.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Phi-4 or QwQ 32B?
Phi-4 and QwQ 32B target different workloads — see the benchmark and pricing tables for a side-by-side answer.
Is Phi-4 cheaper than QwQ 32B?
Compare $0.00000 vs $0.00015 on this page.