LLM Reference

GLM-5.2 vs Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning

GLM-5.2 (2026) and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning (2025) are frontier-tier reasoning models from Zhipu AI and Microsoft Research. GLM-5.2 ships a 1m-token context window, while Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning ships a 128k-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-5.2 fits 8x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning for tighter calls.

Decision scorecard

Local evidence first
SignalGLM-5.2Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
Best forreasoning-heavy apps, tool-calling agents, and long-context analysisreasoning-heavy apps
Decision fitCoding, RAG, and AgentsLong context
Context window1m128k
Cheapest output$4.40/1M tokens-
Provider routes1 tracked1 tracked
Shared benchmarks0 shared0 shared

Decision tradeoffs

Choose GLM-5.2 when...
  • GLM-5.2 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
  • GLM-5.2 uniquely exposes Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs in local model data.
  • Local decision data tags GLM-5.2 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Choose Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning when...
  • Local decision data tags Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning for Long context.

Monthly cost at traffic

Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.

GLM-5.2

$2,220

Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter

Phi-4 Mini Flash 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

GLM-5.2 -> Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for GLM-5.2 and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • Check replacement coverage for Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning -> GLM-5.2
  • No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning and GLM-5.2; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
  • GLM-5.2 adds Function calling, Tool use, and Structured outputs in local capability data.

Specs

Specification
Released2026-06-132025-12-01
Context window1m128k
Parameters753B total, 40B active3.8B
ArchitectureMixture of ExpertsDecoder Only
LicenseMITOSI-approvedMITOSI-approved
OpennessOpen sourceOpen source
Commercial useLicense generally permits commercial use — review termsLicense generally permits commercial use — review terms
Knowledge cutoff-2025-02

Pricing and availability

Pricing attributeGLM-5.2Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
Input price$1.40/1M tokens-
Output price$4.40/1M tokens-
Providers

Capabilities

CapabilityGLM-5.2Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
VisionNoNo
MultimodalNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Function callingYesNo
Tool useYesNo
Structured outputsYesNo
Code executionYesNo
IDE integrationNoNo
Computer useNoNo
Parallel agentsNoNo

Benchmarks

No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.

Deep dive

The capability footprint differs most on function calling: GLM-5.2, tool use: GLM-5.2, structured outputs: GLM-5.2, and code execution: GLM-5.2. Both models share reasoning mode, 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-5.2 has $1.40/1M input tokens and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 1 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.

Choose GLM-5.2 when coding workflow support and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning 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

Which has a larger context window, GLM-5.2 or Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning?

GLM-5.2 supports 1m tokens, while Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning supports 128k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible.

Is GLM-5.2 or Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning open source?

GLM-5.2 is listed under MIT. Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning 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-5.2 or Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning?

Both GLM-5.2 and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning expose reasoning mode. 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, GLM-5.2 or Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning?

GLM-5.2 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-5.2 or Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning?

GLM-5.2 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-5.2 and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning?

GLM-5.2 is available on OpenRouter. Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning is available on NVIDIA NIM. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.

Continue comparing

Last reviewed: 2026-06-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.