Phi-4-mini vs Pixtral 12B vs solar-mini
Pixtral 12B comes out ahead, 64 to 58 and 52 on our weighted score, though Phi-4-mini is 13% cheaper per token.
MicrosoftPhi-4-mini
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.30
- Context128K
- Our pick
Mistral AIPixtral 12B
64/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context128K
Upstage
solar-mini
52/100- ECI—
- Price$0.15 / $0.15
- Context33K
Pixtral 12B is our pick
Pixtral 12B is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Phi-4-mini (58) and solar-mini (52). It leads on inputs & features. Phi-4-mini wins on price. 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 pricePhi-4-miniPhi-4-mini $0.131 · Pixtral 12B $0.15 · solar-mini $0.15 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPhi-4-mini and Pixtral 12BPhi-4-mini 128,000 · Pixtral 12B 128,000 · solar-mini 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsPixtral 12BPhi-4-mini: Text · Pixtral 12B: Text, Images · solar-mini: Text
- Self-hostingPhi-4-mini and Pixtral 12BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Phi-4-mini | Pixtral 12B | solar-mini |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 92 | 89 | 89 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 50 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 24 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 58/100 | 64/100 | 52/100 |
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 | Pixtral 12BMistral AI | solar-miniUpstage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.15 | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.30 | $0.15 (best) | $0.15 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.131 (best) | $0.15 | $0.15 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Azure API | Official Mistral API | Official Upstage API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 128,000 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | phi-4-mini | pixtral-12b | solar-mini |
| API providers | 1 | 4 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Dec 11, 2024 | Sep 1, 2024 | Jun 12, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Oct 2023 | Sep 2024 | Sep 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
- Pixtral 12B$1.80
- solar-mini$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Phi-4-mini, Pixtral 12B or solar-mini?
Pixtral 12B is the better all-round choice, scoring 64/100 against Phi-4-mini (58) and solar-mini (52). It leads on inputs & features. Phi-4-mini wins on price. 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, Pixtral 12B or solar-mini?
Phi-4-mini is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Azure API price). Pixtral 12B costs $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Mistral API price); solar-mini costs $0.15 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (official Upstage API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.131 per million tokens for Phi-4-mini versus $0.15 for Pixtral 12B (1.1× as much) and $0.15 for solar-mini (1.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Phi-4-mini has not been scored yet, Pixtral 12B has not been scored yet and solar-mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Phi-4-mini, Pixtral 12B and solar-mini yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Phi-4-mini and Pixtral 12B have the largest context windows (128,000 and 128,000 tokens), against 32,768 for solar-mini. Maximum output per response: Phi-4-mini up to 4,096, Pixtral 12B up to 128,000, solar-mini up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Phi-4-mini accepts text; Pixtral 12B accepts text and images; solar-mini accepts text. Pixtral 12B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Phi-4-mini and Pixtral 12B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; solar-mini is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Phi-4-mini is the newest, released Dec 11, 2024. Pixtral 12B came out Sep 1, 2024; solar-mini came out Jun 12, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Phi-4-mini Oct 2023, Pixtral 12B Sep 2024, solar-mini Sep 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 Oct 4, 2026.
