LLM Reference

Phi-4 14B vs Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B

Phi-4 14B (2024) and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B (2025) are compact production models from Microsoft Research and Alibaba. Phi-4 14B ships a 16k-token context window, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B ships a not-yet-sourced context window. On pricing, Phi-4 14B costs $0.07/1M input tokens versus $0.10/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.

Phi-4 14B is ~50% cheaper at $0.07/1M; pay for Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B only for provider fit.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalPhi-4 14BQwen3-Next-80B-A3B
Best forprovider-routed productionprovider-routed production
Decision fitClassification and JSON / Tool useClassification and JSON / Tool use
Context window16k
Cheapest output$0.14/1M tokens$0.78/1M tokens
Provider routes3 tracked5 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 rows0 rows

Decision tradeoffs

Choose Phi-4 14B when...
  • Phi-4 14B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • Phi-4 14B has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $0.14/1M tokens.
  • Local decision data tags Phi-4 14B for Classification and JSON / Tool use.
Choose Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B when...
  • Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
  • Local decision data tags Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B for Classification and JSON / Tool use.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

Lower estimate Phi-4 14B

Phi-4 14B

$87.00

Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter

Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B

$273

Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter

Estimated monthly gap: $186. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.

Switch friction

Phi-4 14B -> Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B
  • Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
  • Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B is $0.64/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B -> Phi-4 14B
  • Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter; start route-level A/B tests there.
  • Phi-4 14B is $0.64/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.

Specs

Specification
Released2024-12-132025-12-01
Context window16k
Parameters14B80B (3B active)
Architecturedecoder only-
LicenseOpen SourceProprietary
Knowledge cutoff2024-06-

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributePhi-4 14BQwen3-Next-80B-A3B
Input price$0.07/1M tokens$0.10/1M tokens
Output price$0.14/1M tokens$0.78/1M tokens
Providers

Capabilities

CapabilityPhi-4 14BQwen3-Next-80B-A3B
VisionNoNo
MultimodalNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Function callingNoNo
Tool useNoNo
Structured outputsYesYes
Code executionNoNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint is close: both models cover structured outputs. That makes context budget, benchmark fit, and provider maturity more important than a simple checklist. If your application depends on one integration detail, verify it against the provider route you plan to use, not just the base model listing.

For cost, Phi-4 14B lists $0.07/1M input and $0.14/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider, while Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B lists $0.10/1M input and $0.78/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Phi-4 14B lower by about $0.21 per million blended tokens. Availability is 3 providers versus 5, so concentration risk also matters.

Choose Phi-4 14B when provider fit and lower input-token cost are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B when provider fit and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 14B or Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B?

Phi-4 14B is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Phi-4 14B costs $0.07/1M input and $0.14/1M output tokens. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B costs $0.10/1M input and $0.78/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.

Is Phi-4 14B or Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B open source?

Phi-4 14B is listed under Open Source. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B is listed under Proprietary. 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 structured outputs, Phi-4 14B or Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B?

Both Phi-4 14B and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B expose structured outputs. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.

Where can I run Phi-4 14B and Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B?

Phi-4 14B is available on OpenRouter, Fireworks AI, and Microsoft Foundry. Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B is available on AWS Bedrock, OpenRouter, Venice AI, Novita AI, and Novita AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.

When should I pick Phi-4 14B over Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B?

Phi-4 14B is ~50% cheaper at $0.07/1M; pay for Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B only for provider fit. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Phi-4 14B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Qwen3-Next-80B-A3B.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.