Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Phi 4 vs Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct

Updated October 21, 2026. No benchmark has tested both models yet. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Phi 4Microsoft
Coding
No data
Overall
5.9
Output $/M
$0.14
Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.00
vs $0.14 vs $1.00 per 1M output tokens. Phi 4 is 7.1x cheaper.

Decision reading

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 7.1x less.

No benchmark has tested both yet. Phi 4 has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, GeoBench and LMArena Vision. Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Phi 4 not benchmarked, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Phi 4 $0.14 against Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct $1.00 per million output tokens, 7.1x apart.
Context window
Phi 4 takes 16K tokens, Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct 128K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.1%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: coding1231Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1228Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 34 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.9Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Epoch Capabilities Index130.5Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom0.0%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
BALROG11.6%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
OSWorldNot measured5.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)57.5%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)56.1%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1220Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: expert1203Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1230Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
AA Math Index18.0Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)18.0%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
OTIS Mock AIME13.8%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
MATH level 564.9%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: math1246Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1254Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards measured
Knowledge benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)71.4%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
MMLU84.8%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
GeoBenchNot measured62.0%Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1206Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1202Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1241Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1199Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index22 boards measured
General benchmarks for Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
BenchmarkPhi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B InstructLeader
IFBench23.5%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)0.0%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)62.6%Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text1217Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1201Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1181Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1231Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1197Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1212Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: German1222Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1158Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1151Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: French1224Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1234Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1209Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1206Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1217Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1198Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1162Not measuredOnly Phi 4 measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1115Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1107Only Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Phi 4$0.0001Fits in one request
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.0013Fits in one request

Phi 4 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Phi 4$0.0039Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.043Fits in one request

Phi 4 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Phi 4$0.015Exceeds the context window
Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct$0.170Exceeds the context window

Phi 4 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
SpecificationMicrosoft Phi 4Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct
MakerMicrosoftQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedJanuary 10, 2025February 1, 2025
Context window16K128K
Input $/Mtok$0.07$0.80
Output $/Mtok$0.14$1.00
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Phi 4 better than Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 7.1x less.

Which is cheaper, Phi 4 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Phi 4 costs $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct costs $0.80 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Phi 4 or Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct, with 128K tokens against 16K.

Has any benchmark tested both Phi 4 and Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Phi 4 has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Qwen2.5 VL 72B Instruct on OSWorld, GeoBench and LMArena Vision. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.

Compare next