Phi-4 14B vs Prompt Guard 86M
Phi-4 14B (2024) and Prompt Guard 86M (2024) are compact production models from Microsoft Research and AI at Meta. Phi-4 14B ships a not-yet-sourced context window, while Prompt Guard 86M ships a 512-token context window. On pricing, Prompt Guard 86M costs $0.05/1M input tokens versus $0.07/1M for the alternative. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit.
Phi-4 14B is safer overall; choose Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Phi-4 14B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | Classification and JSON / Tool use | General |
| Context window | — | 512 |
| Cheapest output | $0.14/1M tokens | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Phi-4 14B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Phi-4 14B uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 14B for Classification and JSON / Tool use.
- Prompt Guard 86M has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Prompt Guard 86M has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $0.05/1M tokens.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Phi-4 14B
$87.00
Cheapest tracked route: OpenRouter
Prompt Guard 86M
$52.50
Cheapest tracked route: Microsoft Foundry
Estimated monthly gap: $34.50. Batch, cache, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on Microsoft Foundry; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Prompt Guard 86M is $0.09/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Provider overlap exists on Microsoft Foundry; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Phi-4 14B is $0.09/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Phi-4 14B adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-12-13 | 2024-07-23 |
| Context window | — | 512 |
| Parameters | 14B | 279M |
| Architecture | decoder only | decoder only |
| License | Open Source | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Phi-4 14B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.07/1M tokens | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Output price | $0.14/1M tokens | $0.05/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Phi-4 14B | Prompt Guard 86M |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| 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 structured outputs: Phi-4 14B. 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.
For cost, Phi-4 14B lists $0.07/1M input and $0.14/1M output tokens, while Prompt Guard 86M lists $0.05/1M input and $0.05/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Prompt Guard 86M lower by about $0.04 per million blended tokens. Availability is 3 providers versus 1, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Phi-4 14B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit and lower input-token cost 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 is cheaper, Phi-4 14B or Prompt Guard 86M?
Prompt Guard 86M is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Phi-4 14B costs $0.07/1M input and $0.14/1M output tokens. Prompt Guard 86M costs $0.05/1M input and $0.05/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Phi-4 14B or Prompt Guard 86M open source?
Phi-4 14B is listed under Open Source. 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 structured outputs, Phi-4 14B or Prompt Guard 86M?
Phi-4 14B 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 Phi-4 14B and Prompt Guard 86M?
Phi-4 14B is available on OpenRouter, Fireworks AI, and Microsoft Foundry. 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 14B over Prompt Guard 86M?
Phi-4 14B is safer overall; choose Prompt Guard 86M when provider fit matters. If your workload also depends on provider fit, start with Phi-4 14B; 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.