Phi-4 14B vs TxGemma
Phi-4 14B (2024) and TxGemma (2024) are compact production models from Microsoft Research and Google DeepMind. Phi-4 14B ships a 16k-token context window, while TxGemma 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.
Phi-4 14B is safer overall; choose TxGemma when provider fit matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Phi-4 14B | TxGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | provider-routed production | tool-calling agents |
| Decision fit | Classification and JSON / Tool use | Agents, Classification, and JSON / Tool use |
| Context window | 16k | — |
| Cheapest output | $0.14/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 1 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 shared | 0 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Phi-4 14B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Phi-4 14B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Phi-4 14B for Classification and JSON / Tool use.
- TxGemma uniquely exposes Function calling and Tool use in local model data.
- Local decision data tags TxGemma for Agents, Classification, and JSON / Tool use.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Phi-4 14B
$87.00
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
TxGemma
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 Phi-4 14B and TxGemma; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- TxGemma adds Function calling and Tool use in local capability data.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for TxGemma and Phi-4 14B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Function calling and Tool use before moving production traffic.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2024-12-13 | 2024-06-01 |
| Context window | 16k | — |
| Parameters | 14B | 2B |
| Architecture | Decoder Only | Decoder Only |
| License | MITOSI-approved | Proprietary |
| Openness | Open source | Proprietary |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: permitted | Commercial use: conditional |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2024-06 | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Phi-4 14B | TxGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.07/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $0.14/1M tokens | - |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Phi-4 14B | TxGemma |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | No | No |
| Multimodal | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Function calling | No | Yes |
| Tool use | No | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| 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.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on function calling: TxGemma and tool use: TxGemma. Both models share structured outputs, 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 14B has $0.07/1M input tokens and TxGemma has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 3 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 14B when provider fit and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose TxGemma 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. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Is Phi-4 14B or TxGemma open source?
Phi-4 14B is listed under MIT. TxGemma is listed under Proprietary. 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 function calling, Phi-4 14B or TxGemma?
TxGemma has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for tool use, Phi-4 14B or TxGemma?
TxGemma has the clearer documented tool use signal in this comparison. If tool use 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, Phi-4 14B or TxGemma?
Both Phi-4 14B and TxGemma expose structured outputs. 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.
Where can I run Phi-4 14B and TxGemma?
Phi-4 14B is available on OpenRouter, Fireworks AI, and Microsoft Foundry. TxGemma is available on GCP Vertex AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
When should I pick Phi-4 14B over TxGemma?
Phi-4 14B is safer overall; choose TxGemma 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 TxGemma.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-15. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.