GLM-4 Air 4B vs Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
GLM-4 Air 4B (2025) and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Tsinghua Knowledge Engineering Group (THUDM) and Microsoft Research. GLM-4 Air 4B ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Phi-4 Mini Reasoning ships a not-yet-sourced 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.
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is safer overall; choose GLM-4 Air 4B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-4 Air 4B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | General | General |
| Context window | — | — |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Use GLM-4 Air 4B when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
GLM-4 Air 4B
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 GLM-4 Air 4B 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 GLM-4 Air 4B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2025-03-12 | 2026-05-16 |
| Context window | — | — |
| Parameters | 4B | — |
| Architecture | - | - |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-4 Air 4B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-4 Air 4B | 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 |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced 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: GLM-4 Air 4B 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 GLM-4 Air 4B when provider fit 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
Is GLM-4 Air 4B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning open source?
GLM-4 Air 4B is listed under Apache 2.0. Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is listed under Proprietary. 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, GLM-4 Air 4B 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 GLM-4 Air 4B over Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is safer overall; choose GLM-4 Air 4B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with GLM-4 Air 4B; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Mini Reasoning.
What is the main difference between GLM-4 Air 4B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
GLM-4 Air 4B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning 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: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.