Saba vs Phi-4-mini vs Solar Pro 2
Phi-4-mini comes out ahead, 56 to 51 and 46 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
Mistral AISaba
46/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.60
- Context33K
- Our pick
MicrosoftPhi-4-mini
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.30
- Context128K
UpstageSolar Pro 2
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context66K
Phi-4-mini is our pick
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Solar Pro 2 (51) and Saba (46). It leads on price and context window. 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 · Solar Pro 2 $0.25 · Saba $0.30 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPhi-4-miniPhi-4-mini 128,000 · Solar Pro 2 65,536 · Saba 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSabaSaba: Text, PDFs · Phi-4-mini: Text · Solar Pro 2: Text
- Self-hostingPhi-4-miniPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Saba | Phi-4-mini | Solar Pro 2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 72 | 88 | 75 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 | 35 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 24 | 12 |
| Overall | 100% | 46/100 | 56/100 | 51/100 |
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 | SabaMistral AI | Phi-4-miniMicrosoft | Solar Pro 2Upstage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.075 (best) | $0.25 |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.30 | $0.25 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.30 | $0.131 (best) | $0.25 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Official Azure API | Official Upstage API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) | 65,536 tokens |
| Max output | 26,214 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No | Yesminimal · high |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | phi-4-mini | solar-pro2 |
| API providers | 4 (best) | 2 | 2 |
| Released | Feb 17, 2025 | Feb 26, 2025 | May 20, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 30, 2024 | Jun 2024 | Mar 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Saba$3.20
- Phi-4-mini$1.35
- Solar Pro 2$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Saba, Phi-4-mini or Solar Pro 2?
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Solar Pro 2 (51) and Saba (46). It leads on price and context window. 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, Saba, Phi-4-mini or Solar Pro 2?
Phi-4-mini is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Azure API price). Solar Pro 2 costs $0.25 input / $0.25 output per million tokens (official Upstage 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 $0.131 per million tokens for Phi-4-mini versus $0.25 for Solar Pro 2 (1.9× as much) and $0.30 for Saba (2.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Saba has not been scored yet, Phi-4-mini has not been scored yet and Solar Pro 2 has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Saba, Phi-4-mini and Solar Pro 2 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 has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Solar Pro 2 and 32,768 for Saba. Maximum output per response: Saba up to 26,214, Phi-4-mini up to 4,096, Solar Pro 2 up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Saba accepts text and PDFs; Phi-4-mini accepts text; Solar Pro 2 accepts text. Saba handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Phi-4-mini publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Saba and Solar Pro 2 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Solar Pro 2 is the newest, released May 20, 2025. Phi-4-mini came out Feb 26, 2025; Saba came out Feb 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Saba Sep 30, 2024, Phi-4-mini Jun 2024, Solar Pro 2 Mar 2025.
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.
