Gemma 2B vs Phi-4 Mini
Gemma 2B (2024) and Phi-4 Mini (2024) are compact production models from Google DeepMind and Microsoft Research. Gemma 2B ships a 2K-token context window, while Phi-4 Mini ships a not-yet-sourced context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Gemma 2B leads by 14.6 pts. 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 Mini is safer overall; choose Gemma 2B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Gemma 2B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Coding and Classification | Classification |
| Context window | 2K | — |
| Cheapest output | - | $0.15/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 3 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | Google-Proof Q&A leader | 2 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Gemma 2B leads the largest shared benchmark signal on Google-Proof Q&A by 14.6 points.
- Gemma 2B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Local decision data tags Gemma 2B for Coding and Classification.
- Phi-4 Mini leads the largest shared benchmark signal on Massive Multitask Language Understanding by 3.1 points.
- Phi-4 Mini has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Mini for Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Gemma 2B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Phi-4 Mini
$77.50
Cheapest tracked route: Novita AI
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Gemma 2B and Phi-4 Mini; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Mini and Gemma 2B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-02-21 | 2024-12-13 |
| Context window | 2K | — |
| Parameters | 2B | 3.8B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Open Source | Microsoft Research |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2023-04 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Gemma 2B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $0.15/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Gemma 2B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemma 2B | Phi-4 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 39.8 | 25.2 |
| Massive Multitask Language Understanding | 64.2 | 67.3 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has Gemma 2B at 39.8 and Phi-4 Mini at 25.2, with Gemma 2B ahead by 14.6 points; Massive Multitask Language Understanding has Gemma 2B at 64.2 and Phi-4 Mini at 67.3, with Phi-4 Mini ahead by 3.1 points. The largest visible gap is 14.6 points on Google-Proof Q&A, 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 is close: both models cover the core production surface. 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.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Gemma 2B has no token price sourced yet and Phi-4 Mini has $0.05/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 3. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Gemma 2B when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Mini 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.
FAQ
Is Gemma 2B or Phi-4 Mini open source?
Gemma 2B is listed under Open Source. Phi-4 Mini is listed under Microsoft Research. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Where can I run Gemma 2B and Phi-4 Mini?
Gemma 2B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Phi-4 Mini is available on Fireworks AI, NVIDIA NIM, and Novita AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Gemma 2B over Phi-4 Mini?
Phi-4 Mini is safer overall; choose Gemma 2B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Gemma 2B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Mini.
What is the main difference between Gemma 2B and Phi-4 Mini?
Gemma 2B and Phi-4 Mini differ most on context, provider coverage, capabilities, or pricing depending on the data currently sourced. Use the specs table first, then validate the model behavior with your own prompts.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.