Phi-4-mini vs Reka Flash 3 vs Saba
Phi-4-mini comes out ahead, 56 to 50 and 46 on our weighted score.
- Our pick
MicrosoftPhi-4-mini
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.30
- Context128K
Reka AIReka Flash 3
50/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.20
- Context66K
Mistral AISaba
46/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.60
- Context33K
Phi-4-mini is our pick
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Reka Flash 3 (50) and Saba (46). It leads on context window. Saba wins on inputs & features. 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 priceReka Flash 3Reka Flash 3 $0.125 · Phi-4-mini $0.131 · Saba $0.30 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPhi-4-miniPhi-4-mini 128,000 · Reka Flash 3 65,536 · Saba 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSabaPhi-4-mini: Text · Reka Flash 3: Text · Saba: Text, PDFs
- Self-hostingPhi-4-mini and Reka Flash 3Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Phi-4-mini | Reka Flash 3 | Saba |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 88 | 89 | 72 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 10 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 12 | 0 |
| Overall | 100% | 56/100 | 50/100 | 46/100 |
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 | Reka Flash 3Reka AI | SabaMistral AI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.075 (best) | $0.10 | $0.20 |
| Output | $0.30 | $0.20 (best) | $0.60 |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.131 | $0.125 (best) | $0.30 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Azure API | Median of 3 providers | Median of 4 providers |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens | 32,768 tokens |
| Max output | 4,096 tokens | 58,982 tokens (best) | 26,214 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | No | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Open | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | phi-4-mini | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 3 | 4 (best) |
| Released | Feb 26, 2025 | Mar 10, 2025 | Feb 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2024 | Jan 31, 2025 | Sep 30, 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
- Reka Flash 3$1.40
- Saba$3.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Phi-4-mini, Reka Flash 3 or Saba?
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Reka Flash 3 (50) and Saba (46). It leads on context window. Saba wins on inputs & features. 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, Reka Flash 3 or Saba?
Reka Flash 3 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Phi-4-mini costs $0.075 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Azure API price); Saba costs $0.20 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (median across 4 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.125 per million tokens for Reka Flash 3 versus $0.131 for Phi-4-mini (1× as much) and $0.30 for Saba (2.4× 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, Reka Flash 3 has not been scored yet and Saba has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Phi-4-mini, Reka Flash 3 and Saba yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Reka Flash 3 does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Phi-4-mini has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Reka Flash 3 and 32,768 for Saba. Maximum output per response: Phi-4-mini up to 4,096, Reka Flash 3 up to 58,982, Saba up to 26,214 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Phi-4-mini accepts text; Reka Flash 3 accepts text; Saba accepts text and PDFs. Saba handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Phi-4-mini and Reka Flash 3 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Saba is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Reka Flash 3 is the newest, released Mar 10, 2025. Phi-4-mini came out Feb 26, 2025; Saba came out Feb 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Phi-4-mini Jun 2024, Reka Flash 3 Jan 31, 2025, Saba Sep 30, 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.
