Phi-4 14B vs Qwen3.5-235B-A22B
Phi-4 14B (2024) and Qwen3.5-235B-A22B (2026) are general-purpose language models from Microsoft Research and Alibaba. Phi-4 14B ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Qwen3.5-235B-A22B ships a 512k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
Qwen3.5-235B-A22B is safer overall; choose Phi-4 14B when provider fit matters.
Specs
| Released | 2024-12-13 | 2026-02-24 |
| Context window | — | 512k |
| Parameters | 14B | 235B |
| Architecture | decoder only | MoE |
| License | Open Source | Apache 2.0 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Phi-4 14B | Qwen3.5-235B-A22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.07/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.14/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Phi-4 14B | Qwen3.5-235B-A22B | |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | ||
| Multimodal | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Function calling | ||
| Tool use | ||
| Structured outputs | ||
| Code execution |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on structured outputs: Phi-4 14B. 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.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Phi-4 14B has $0.07/1M input tokens and Qwen3.5-235B-A22B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 2 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Phi-4 14B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.5-235B-A22B when provider fit 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
Is Phi-4 14B or Qwen3.5-235B-A22B open source?
Phi-4 14B is listed under Open Source. Qwen3.5-235B-A22B 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 structured outputs, Phi-4 14B or Qwen3.5-235B-A22B?
Phi-4 14B has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Phi-4 14B and Qwen3.5-235B-A22B?
Phi-4 14B is available on OpenRouter and Fireworks AI. Qwen3.5-235B-A22B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Phi-4 14B over Qwen3.5-235B-A22B?
Qwen3.5-235B-A22B is safer overall; choose Phi-4 14B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Phi-4 14B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Qwen3.5-235B-A22B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-04-24. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.