GLM-4V 9B vs Phi-4 Mini Reasoning
GLM-4V 9B (2024) and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Tsinghua Knowledge Engineering Group (THUDM) and Microsoft Research. GLM-4V 9B ships a 131K-token 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-4V 9B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Long context and Vision | General |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Cheapest output | $0.25/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- GLM-4V 9B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- GLM-4V 9B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- GLM-4V 9B uniquely exposes Multimodal in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GLM-4V 9B for Long context and Vision.
- 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-4V 9B
$103
Cheapest tracked route: Replicate API
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-4V 9B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Multimodal before moving production traffic.
- Phi-4 Mini Reasoning adds Reasoning in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Mini Reasoning and GLM-4V 9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- GLM-4V 9B adds Multimodal in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-06-05 | 2026-05-16 |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Parameters | 9B | — |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Unknown | Proprietary |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.05/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.25/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Mini Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | 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 multimodal input: GLM-4V 9B and 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-4V 9B has $0.05/1M input tokens and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning 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 GLM-4V 9B when provider fit and broader provider choice 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-4V 9B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning open source?
GLM-4V 9B is listed under Unknown. 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 multimodal input, GLM-4V 9B or Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
GLM-4V 9B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for reasoning mode, GLM-4V 9B 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.
Where can I run GLM-4V 9B and Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
GLM-4V 9B is available on Replicate API. Phi-4 Mini Reasoning 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 GLM-4V 9B over Phi-4 Mini Reasoning?
Phi-4 Mini Reasoning is safer overall; choose GLM-4V 9B when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with GLM-4V 9B; if it depends on reasoning depth, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Mini Reasoning.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.