Model Comparison
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
vs. Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Microsoft, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)8 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
54.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
17.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) generates about 10.9x as many tokens per second as Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) leads Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct by 30.8 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) wins 8 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
Microsoft
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Mi Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct | Top Pick Al Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.00/1M | $0.50/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.00/1M | $6.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $1.88/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Microsoft | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 26, 2025 | Sep 11, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 16.9 tok/s | 184.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | 363ms | 1244ms |
| Latency | 363ms | 12109ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | — | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 23.8 | 54.6 |
| Intelligence | 4.5 | 16.7 |
| Coding | — | 17.4 |
| Math | — | 84.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 31.5% | 75.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 48.5% | 82.4% |
| HLE | 4.4% | 11.7% |
| LiveCodeBench | 13.1% | 78.4% |
| MATH 500 | 69.3% | — |
| AIME 2025 | — | 84.3% |
| AIME (Original) | 9.3% | — |
| SciCode | 11.0% | 38.8% |
| LCR | — | 60.3% |
| IFBench | — | 60.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 41.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 9.8% |
Key Takeaways
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 54.6 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning) reaches a 17.4 coding index,making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3 Next 80B A3B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
