GLM-5 9B vs Phi-3 Mini 4k
GLM-5 9B (2026) and Phi-3 Mini 4k (2024) are frontier reasoning models from Zhipu AI and Microsoft Research. GLM-5 9B ships a 262k-token context window, while Phi-3 Mini 4k ships a 4k-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing.
GLM-5 9B fits 66x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Phi-3 Mini 4k for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-5 9B | Phi-3 Mini 4k |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps and tool-calling agents | provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | RAG, Agents, and Long context | Coding and Classification |
| Context window | 262k | 4k |
| Cheapest output | - | $0.25/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 4 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- GLM-5 9B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- GLM-5 9B uniquely exposes Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GLM-5 9B for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
- Phi-3 Mini 4k has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Phi-3 Mini 4k for Coding and Classification.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
GLM-5 9B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Phi-3 Mini 4k
$103
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Replicate API
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for GLM-5 9B and Phi-3 Mini 4k; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-3 Mini 4k and GLM-5 9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- GLM-5 9B adds Reasoning, Function calling, and Tool use in local capability data.
Specs
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-5 9B | Phi-3 Mini 4k |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $0.25/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-5 9B | Phi-3 Mini 4k |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | 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 reasoning mode: GLM-5 9B, function calling: GLM-5 9B, and tool use: GLM-5 9B. 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-5 9B has no token price sourced yet and Phi-3 Mini 4k has $0.05/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 4. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose GLM-5 9B when reasoning depth and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Phi-3 Mini 4k 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. 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
Which has a larger context window, GLM-5 9B or Phi-3 Mini 4k?
GLM-5 9B supports 262k tokens, while Phi-3 Mini 4k supports 4k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.
Is GLM-5 9B or Phi-3 Mini 4k open source?
GLM-5 9B is listed under MIT. Phi-3 Mini 4k is listed under MIT. 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-5 9B or Phi-3 Mini 4k?
GLM-5 9B 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.
Which is better for function calling, GLM-5 9B or Phi-3 Mini 4k?
GLM-5 9B 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.
Which is better for tool use, GLM-5 9B or Phi-3 Mini 4k?
GLM-5 9B has the clearer documented tool use signal in this comparison. If tool use is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run GLM-5 9B and Phi-3 Mini 4k?
GLM-5 9B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Phi-3 Mini 4k is available on Microsoft Foundry, NVIDIA NIM, Baseten API, and Replicate API. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.