Qwen 3 32B vs Phi-4
Architecture Comparison
SpecQwen 3 32BPhi-4
TypeDENSEDENSE
Total Parameters32.8B14.7B
Active Parameters32.8B14.7B
Layers6440
Hidden Dimension5,1205,120
Attention Heads4040
KV Heads810
Context Length131,07216,384
Precision (default)BF16BF16
Memory Requirements
PrecisionQwen 3 32BPhi-4
BF16 Weights65.6 GB29.4 GB
FP8 Weights32.8 GB14.7 GB
INT4 Weights16.4 GB7.3 GB
KV-Cache / Token262144 B204800 B
Activation Estimate2.00 GB1.50 GB
Minimum GPUs Needed (BF16)
H100 SXM1 GPU1 GPU
L40S2 GPUs1 GPU
Quality Benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen 3 32BPhi-4
Overall8083
MMLU82.084.8
HumanEval55.067.0
GSM8K90.093.0
MT-Bench84.085.0
Qwen 3 32B
MMLU
82.0
HumanEval
55.0
GSM8K
90.0
MT-Bench
84.0
Phi-4
MMLU
84.8
HumanEval
67.0
GSM8K
93.0
MT-Bench
85.0
Capabilities
FeatureQwen 3 32BPhi-4
Tool Use✓ Yes✓ Yes
Vision✗ No✗ No
Code✓ Yes✓ Yes
Math✓ Yes✓ Yes
Reasoning✓ Yes✓ Yes
Multilingual✓ Yes✓ Yes
Structured Output✓ Yes✓ Yes
API Pricing Comparison
Cheapest Output (Qwen 3 32B)
$0.80/M
Input: $0.80/M
Cheapest Output (Phi-4)
$0.14/M
Input: $0.07/M
| Provider | Qwen 3 32B In $/M | Out $/M | Phi-4 In $/M | Out $/M |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| azure | — | — | $0.07 | $0.14 |
| together | $0.80 | $0.80 | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| fireworks | $0.90 | $0.90 | — | — |
Recommendation Summary
- ‣Phi-4 scores higher on overall quality (83 vs 80).
- ‣Phi-4 is cheaper per output token ($0.14/M vs $0.80/M).
- ‣Phi-4 has a smaller memory footprint (29.4 GB vs 65.6 GB BF16), making it easier to deploy on fewer GPUs.
- ‣Qwen 3 32B supports a longer context window (131,072 vs 16,384 tokens).
- ‣Phi-4 is stronger at code generation (HumanEval: 67.0 vs 55.0).
- ‣Phi-4 is better at math reasoning (GSM8K: 93.0 vs 90.0).