Phi 4 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Updated October 21, 2026. 10 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Phi 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 19.3x less.
- Shared results
- 10
- Phi 4 only
- 35
- Qwen3.6 27B only
- 14
- Like-for-like categories
- 6 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B leads, 21.4 against 5.9.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 18.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B takes 262K tokens against 16K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Phi 4
Phi 4 $0.0001, Qwen3.6 27B $0.0018 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has the number, $1.30.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Phi 4 not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Agentic work, 94.2 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- τ²-Bench Telecom: Phi 4 0.0% against Qwen3.6 27B 94.2%, 94.2 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Phi 4 $0.14 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 19.3x apart.
- Context window
- Phi 4 takes 16K tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Phi 4 | Bars | Qwen3.6 27B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| Intelligence | 0 | 2 | ||
| Agentic work | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 3 | ||
| Math | 0 | 1 | ||
| General | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 10 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 53.7 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 11.9% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.1% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 42.8% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1231 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 30 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 5.9 | 21.4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.5 | 146.2 | Qwen3.6 27B |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 18.5 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 0.0% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| BALROG | 11.6% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 57.5% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | 23.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 56.1% | 85.9% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 7.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1220 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1203 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1230 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 18.0 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 18.0% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 13.8% | 91.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 35.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MATH level 5 | 64.9% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1246 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1254 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 62.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 71.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| MMLU | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1206 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1202 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1199 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.6% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| IFBench | 23.5% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 0.0% | 77.3% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| DTBench | Not measured | 78.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | 62.6% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1217 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1201 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1181 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1231 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1197 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1212 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1222 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1158 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1151 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1224 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1234 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1209 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1206 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1217 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1198 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1162 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 24 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 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 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Phi 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Microsoft Phi 4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Microsoft | Qwen |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | January 10, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 16K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.07 | $0.45 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.14 | $2.70 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 36.8 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.30 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Phi 4 better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Phi 4 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Phi 4 has the edge where output tokens cost 19.3x less.
Which is cheaper, Phi 4 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Phi 4 costs $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.
Which has the bigger context window, Phi 4 or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B, with 262K tokens against 16K.
How many benchmarks is the Phi 4 vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?
10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Phi 4's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.