GLM-4V 9B vs Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
GLM-4V 9B (2024) and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) are general-purpose language models from Tsinghua Knowledge Engineering Group (THUDM) and Microsoft Research. GLM-4V 9B ships a 131K-token context window, while Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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 Reasoning Vision 15B is safer overall; choose GLM-4V 9B when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Long context and Vision | Vision |
| 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.
- Local decision data tags GLM-4V 9B for Long context and Vision.
- 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 prices on this page.
GLM-4V 9B
$103
Cheapest tracked route: Replicate API
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 GLM-4V 9B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and GLM-4V 9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-06-05 | 2026-03-12 |
| Context window | 131K | — |
| Parameters | 9B | 15B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Unknown | Microsoft Research |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.05/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.25/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-4V 9B | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| 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 is close: both models cover multimodal input. 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: GLM-4V 9B has $0.05/1M input tokens 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 GLM-4V 9B 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 GLM-4V 9B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B open source?
GLM-4V 9B is listed under Unknown. 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, GLM-4V 9B or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Both GLM-4V 9B 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.
Where can I run GLM-4V 9B and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
GLM-4V 9B is available on Replicate API. 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 GLM-4V 9B over Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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 provider fit, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-04-19. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.