Gemma 4 E2B vs Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
Gemma 4 E2B (2026) and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) are compact production models from Google DeepMind and Microsoft Research. Gemma 4 E2B ships a 128k-token context window, while Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B ships a not-yet-sourced context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Gemma 4 E2B is safer overall; choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Gemma 4 E2B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | multimodal apps and tool-calling agents | multimodal apps |
| Decision fit | RAG, Agents, and Long context | Vision |
| Context window | 128k | — |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Gemma 4 E2B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Gemma 4 E2B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Gemma 4 E2B uniquely exposes Function calling in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Gemma 4 E2B for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B for Vision.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Gemma 4 E2B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
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 Gemma 4 E2B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Function calling before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and Gemma 4 E2B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Gemma 4 E2B adds Function calling in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-03-31 | 2026-03-12 |
| Context window | 128k | — |
| Parameters | 2B | 15B |
| Architecture | - | - |
| License | Open Source | Microsoft Research |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-01 | 2025-03 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Gemma 4 E2B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | Gemma 4 E2B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | Yes | 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 rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on function calling: Gemma 4 E2B. Both models share multimodal input, 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: Gemma 4 E2B has no token price sourced yet and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Gemma 4 E2B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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 Gemma 4 E2B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B open source?
Gemma 4 E2B is listed under Open Source. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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.
Which is better for multimodal input, Gemma 4 E2B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Both Gemma 4 E2B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface.
Which is better for function calling, Gemma 4 E2B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Gemma 4 E2B has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Gemma 4 E2B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Gemma 4 E2B is available on GCP Vertex AI. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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 Gemma 4 E2B over Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Gemma 4 E2B is safer overall; choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Gemma 4 E2B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-03. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.