GPT-5.4-Cyber vs Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
GPT-5.4-Cyber (2026) and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) are frontier reasoning models from OpenAI and Microsoft Research. GPT-5.4-Cyber ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B ships a not-yet-sourced 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.
GPT-5.4-Cyber is safer overall; choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when vision-heavy evaluation matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | GPT-5.4-Cyber | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps and multimodal apps | multimodal apps |
| Decision fit | Vision | Vision |
| Context window | — | — |
| Cheapest output | - | - |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- GPT-5.4-Cyber uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags GPT-5.4-Cyber for 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 route or tier on this page.
GPT-5.4-Cyber
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
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 GPT-5.4-Cyber and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and GPT-5.4-Cyber; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- GPT-5.4-Cyber adds Reasoning in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-04-14 | 2026-03-12 |
| Context window | — | — |
| Parameters | — | 15B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Proprietary | MIT(OSI) |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use with conditions | Commercial use allowed |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-08 | 2025-03 |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | GPT-5.4-Cyber | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | - |
| Output price | - | - |
| Providers | - | - |
Pricing not yet sourced for either model.
Capabilities
| Capability | GPT-5.4-Cyber | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | 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: GPT-5.4-Cyber. Both models share vision and multimodal input, 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: GPT-5.4-Cyber has no token price sourced yet and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose GPT-5.4-Cyber when reasoning depth are central to the workload. Choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when vision-heavy evaluation 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 GPT-5.4-Cyber or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B open source?
GPT-5.4-Cyber is listed under Proprietary. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B 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 vision, GPT-5.4-Cyber or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Both GPT-5.4-Cyber and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, GPT-5.4-Cyber or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Both GPT-5.4-Cyber 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.
Which is better for reasoning mode, GPT-5.4-Cyber or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
GPT-5.4-Cyber 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.
When should I pick GPT-5.4-Cyber over Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
GPT-5.4-Cyber is safer overall; choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when vision-heavy evaluation matters. If your workload also depends on reasoning depth, start with GPT-5.4-Cyber; if it depends on vision-heavy evaluation, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-04. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.