Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B vs Prompt Guard 86M
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B (2026) and Prompt Guard 86M (2024) are compact production models from Microsoft Research and AI at Meta. Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Prompt Guard 86M ships a 512-token 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 Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Vision | General |
| Context window | — | 512 |
| Cheapest output | - | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 0 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B uniquely exposes Multimodal in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B for Vision.
- Prompt Guard 86M has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Prompt Guard 86M has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Prompt Guard 86M
$52.50
Cheapest tracked route: Microsoft Foundry
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and Prompt Guard 86M; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Multimodal before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Prompt Guard 86M and Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B adds Multimodal in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-03-12 | 2024-07-23 |
| Context window | — | 512 |
| Parameters | 15B | 279M |
| Architecture | - | decoder only |
| License | Microsoft Research | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | - | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Output price | - | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | No |
| Tool use | No | No |
| Structured outputs | No | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on multimodal input: Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B. 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: Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B has no token price sourced yet and Prompt Guard 86M has $0.05/1M input tokens. Provider availability is 0 tracked routes versus 1. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B when provider fit are central to the workload. Choose Prompt Guard 86M 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
Is Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B or Prompt Guard 86M open source?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is listed under Microsoft Research. Prompt Guard 86M is listed under Unknown. 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 multimodal input, Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B or Prompt Guard 86M?
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.
Where can I run Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B and Prompt Guard 86M?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Prompt Guard 86M is available on Microsoft Foundry. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B over Prompt Guard 86M?
Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B is safer overall; choose Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Phi-4 Reasoning Vision 15B; if it depends on provider fit, run the same evaluation with Prompt Guard 86M.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-16. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.