Llama 3.2 90B Vision vs Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
Llama 3.2 90B Vision (2024) and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) are compact production models from AI at Meta and Microsoft Research. Llama 3.2 90B Vision ships a 128K-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 Llama 3.2 90B Vision when vision-heavy evaluation matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Llama 3.2 90B Vision | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | RAG, Long context, and Vision | Vision |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Cheapest output | $1.8/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 1 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision uniquely exposes Vision and Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Llama 3.2 90B Vision for RAG, Long context, and Vision.
- Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B uniquely exposes Multimodal in local model data.
- 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.
Llama 3.2 90B Vision
$1,530
Cheapest tracked route: AWS Bedrock
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 Llama 3.2 90B Vision and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision and Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B adds Multimodal in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and Llama 3.2 90B Vision; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Multimodal before moving production traffic.
- Llama 3.2 90B Vision adds Vision and Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-09-25 | 2026-03-12 |
| Context window | 128K | — |
| Parameters | 88.8B | 15B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Open Source | Microsoft Research |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-03 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Llama 3.2 90B Vision | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1.35/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $1.8/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Llama 3.2 90B Vision | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Llama 3.2 90B Vision, multimodal input: Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B, and structured outputs: Llama 3.2 90B Vision. 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: Llama 3.2 90B Vision has $1.35/1M 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 Llama 3.2 90B Vision when vision-heavy evaluation 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.
FAQ
Is Llama 3.2 90B Vision or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B open source?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision is listed under Open Source. 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 vision, Llama 3.2 90B Vision or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for multimodal input, Llama 3.2 90B Vision or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for structured outputs, Llama 3.2 90B Vision or Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision has the clearer documented structured outputs signal in this comparison. If structured outputs is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Llama 3.2 90B Vision and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Llama 3.2 90B Vision is available on AWS Bedrock. 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 Llama 3.2 90B Vision over Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is safer overall; choose Llama 3.2 90B Vision when vision-heavy evaluation matters. If your workload also depends on vision-heavy evaluation, start with Llama 3.2 90B Vision; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-11. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.