Phi-4-mini vs ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
Too close to call on our weighted score (ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B 57, Phi-4-mini 56). The right pick depends on what you value most.
MicrosoftPhi-4-mini
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.30
- Context128K
BaiduERNIE 4.5 21B A3B
57/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.28
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B 57/100, Phi-4-mini 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B on price and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceERNIE 4.5 21B A3BERNIE 4.5 21B A3B $0.122 · Phi-4-mini $0.131 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextERNIE 4.5 21B A3BERNIE 4.5 21B A3B 131,072 · Phi-4-mini 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsPhi-4-mini: Text · ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Phi-4-mini | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 88 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 57/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Phi-4-miniMicrosoft | ERNIE 4.5 21B A3BBaidu |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.075 | $0.07 (best) |
| Output | $0.30 | $0.28 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.131 | $0.122 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Azure API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 8,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | phi-4-mini | — |
| API providers | 2 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Feb 26, 2025 | Jun 30, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Phi-4-mini$1.35
- ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B$1.26
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Phi-4-mini or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B 57/100, Phi-4-mini 56/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B on price and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Phi-4-mini or ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B?
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.28 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). Phi-4-mini costs $0.075 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Azure API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.122 per million tokens for ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B versus $0.131 for Phi-4-mini (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Phi-4-mini has not been scored yet and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Phi-4-mini and ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B has the largest context window at 131,072 tokens, against 128,000 for Phi-4-mini. Maximum output per response: Phi-4-mini up to 4,096, ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B up to 8,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Phi-4-mini accepts text; ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B accepts text. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (Apache-2.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
ERNIE 4.5 21B A3B is the newest, released Jun 30, 2025. Phi-4-mini came out Feb 26, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Phi-4-mini Jun 2024.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Nov 2, 2026.
