GLM-5 vs Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
GLM-5 (2026) and Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning (2025) are frontier-tier reasoning models from Zhipu AI and Microsoft Research. GLM-5 ships a 200k-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 is safer overall; choose Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GLM-5 | Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, tool-calling agents, and provider-routed production | reasoning-heavy apps |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Long context |
| Context window | 200k | 128k |
| Cheapest output | $2.08/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 7 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 shared | 0 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- GLM-5 has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- GLM-5 has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and route flexibility.
- GLM-5 uniquely exposes JSON / Tool use and Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GLM-5 for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- 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
$1,000
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
- Provider overlap exists on NVIDIA NIM; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Check replacement coverage for JSON / Tool use and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Provider overlap exists on NVIDIA NIM; start route-level A/B tests there.
- GLM-5 adds JSON / Tool use and Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-02-11 | 2025-12-01 |
| Context window | 200k | 128k |
| Parameters | 744B total, 40B active | 3.8B |
| Architecture | Mixture of Experts | Decoder Only |
| License | MITOSI-approved | MITOSI-approved |
| Openness | Open source | Open source |
| Weights | Available | Unknown |
| Code | Unknown | Unknown |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: permitted | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-11 | 2025-02 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GLM-5 | Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.60/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $2.08/1M tokens | - |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | GLM-5 | Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| JSON / Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark scores are currently available for this pair.
Continue comparing
Popular comparisons for GLM-5
Popular comparisons for Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs Qwen3.5-9B
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs Together AI - Gemma 3n-e4B
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs Gemma 2 9B SahabatAI Instruct
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs ByteDance Doubao Seed 2.0 Pro
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs Llama 3 8B Instruct
- Phi-4 Mini Flash Reasoning vs Llama 3.2 1B Instruct
Last reviewed: 2026-06-30. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.