Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 vs Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 (2024) and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Google DeepMind and Microsoft Research. Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 ships a 2m-token context window, while Phi-4 Mini Reasoning ships a 128k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | long-context analysis | reasoning-heavy apps |
| Decision fit | Long context | Long context |
| Context window | 2m | 128k |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 shared | 0 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 for Long context.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Mini Reasoning for Long context.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning adds Reasoning in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Mini Reasoning and Gemini 1.5 Pro 002; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-09-24 | 2026-05-16 |
| Context window | 2m | 128k |
| Parameters | — | 3.8B |
| Architecture | Decoder Only | - |
| License | Proprietary | MITOSI-approved |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: conditional | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-08 | 2025-02 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Phi-4 Mini Reasoning. 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: Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 has no token price sourced yet and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 when long-context analysis and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Mini Reasoning when reasoning depth 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 has a larger context window, Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 supports 2m tokens, while Phi-4 Mini Reasoning supports 128k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning open source?
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 is listed under Proprietary. Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is listed under MIT. 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 reasoning mode, Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning 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.
When should I pick Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 over Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning for tighter calls. If your workload also depends on long-context analysis, start with Gemini 1.5 Pro 002; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Mini Reasoning.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.