Saba vs Phi-4-mini
Phi-4-mini comes out ahead, 56 to 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
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Phi-4-mini is our pick
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Saba (46). It leads on price and 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 pricePhi-4-miniPhi-4-mini $0.131 · Saba $0.30 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextPhi-4-miniPhi-4-mini 128,000 · Saba 32,768 tokens
- Widest inputsSabaSaba: Text, PDFs · Phi-4-mini: Text
- Self-hostingPhi-4-miniPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Saba | Phi-4-mini |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 72 | 88 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 |
| Context window | 20% | 0 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 46/100 | 56/100 |
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 |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.075 (best) |
| Output | $0.60 | $0.30 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.30 | $0.131 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 4 providers | Official Azure API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 32,768 tokens | 128,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 26,214 tokens (best) | 4,096 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | No |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | phi-4-mini |
| API providers | 4 (best) | 2 |
| Released | Feb 17, 2025 | Feb 26, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 30, 2024 | 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.
- Saba$3.20
- Phi-4-mini$1.35
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Saba or Phi-4-mini?
Phi-4-mini is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against Saba (46). It leads on price and 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, Saba or Phi-4-mini?
Phi-4-mini is cheaper at $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 $0.131 per million tokens for Phi-4-mini versus $0.30 for Saba (2.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Saba has not been scored yet and Phi-4-mini has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Saba and Phi-4-mini 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?
Phi-4-mini has the largest context window at 128,000 tokens, against 32,768 for Saba. Maximum output per response: Saba up to 26,214, Phi-4-mini up to 4,096 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Saba accepts text and PDFs; Phi-4-mini 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 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Phi-4-mini is the newest, released Feb 26, 2025. Saba came out Feb 17, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Saba Sep 30, 2024, 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.
