Phi-3 Medium 128K vs Qwen3.5-397B-A17B
Phi-3 Medium 128K (2024) and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Microsoft Research and Alibaba. Phi-3 Medium 128K ships a 128K-token context window, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ships a 262K-token context window. On MMLU PRO, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B leads by 35.9 pts. On pricing, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.39/1M input tokens versus $0.5/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is safer overall; choose Phi-3 Medium 128K when provider fit matters.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-05-21 | 2026-02-16 |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Parameters | 14B | 397B |
| Architecture | decoder only | MoE |
| License | Open Source | Apache 2.0 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Phi-3 Medium 128K | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.5/1M tokens | $0.39/1M tokens |
| Output price | $1.5/1M tokens | $2.34/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Phi-3 Medium 128K | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | No | Yes |
| Tool use | No | Yes |
| Structured outputs | No | Yes |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Phi-3 Medium 128K | Qwen3.5-397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU PRO | 51.9 | 87.8 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, MMLU PRO has Phi-3 Medium 128K at 51.9 and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B at 87.8, with Qwen3.5-397B-A17B ahead by 35.9 points. The largest visible gap is 35.9 points on MMLU PRO, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on multimodal input: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, reasoning mode: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, function calling: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, tool use: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B, and structured outputs: Qwen3.5-397B-A17B. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Phi-3 Medium 128K lists $0.5/1M input and $1.5/1M output tokens, while Qwen3.5-397B-A17B lists $0.39/1M input and $2.34/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Phi-3 Medium 128K lower by about $0.17 per million blended tokens. Availability is 2 providers versus 1, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Phi-3 Medium 128K when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.5-397B-A17B when reasoning depth, larger context windows, and lower input-token cost are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Phi-3 Medium 128K or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B supports 262K tokens, while Phi-3 Medium 128K supports 128K tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Which is cheaper, Phi-3 Medium 128K or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Phi-3 Medium 128K costs $0.5/1M input and $1.5/1M output tokens. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B costs $0.39/1M input and $2.34/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Phi-3 Medium 128K or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B open source?
Phi-3 Medium 128K is listed under Open Source. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for multimodal input, Phi-3 Medium 128K or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Phi-3 Medium 128K or Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Phi-3 Medium 128K and Qwen3.5-397B-A17B?
Phi-3 Medium 128K is available on Microsoft Foundry and NVIDIA NIM. Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is available on OpenRouter. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.