Solar Pro 2 vs Phi-4-mini vs Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite comes out ahead, 83 to 56 and 51 on our weighted score, though Phi-4-mini is 25% cheaper per token.
UpstageSolar Pro 2
51/100- ECI—
- Price$0.25 / $0.25
- Context66K
MicrosoftPhi-4-mini
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.075 / $0.30
- Context128K
- Our pick
GoogleGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite
83/100- ECI—
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1.05M
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is our pick
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Phi-4-mini (56) and Solar Pro 2 (51). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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 · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite $0.175 · Solar Pro 2 $0.25 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 1,048,576 · Phi-4-mini 128,000 · Solar Pro 2 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsGemini 2.5 Flash-LiteSolar Pro 2: Text · Phi-4-mini: Text · Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite: Text, Images, PDFs, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingPhi-4-miniPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Solar Pro 2 | Phi-4-mini | Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 75 | 88 | 82 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 35 | 25 | 100 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 24 | 61 |
| Overall | 100% | 51/100 | 56/100 | 83/100 |
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 | Solar Pro 2Upstage | Phi-4-miniMicrosoft | Gemini 2.5 Flash-LiteGoogle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.25 | $0.075 (best) | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.25 (best) | $0.30 | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.25 | $0.131 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Upstage API | Official Azure API | Official Google API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 128,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 4,096 tokens | 65,536 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No | Yes |
| Video | No | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yesminimal · high | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | solar-pro2 | phi-4-mini | gemini-2.5-flash-lite |
| API providers | 2 | 2 | 24 (best) |
| Released | May 20, 2025 | Feb 26, 2025 | Jun 17, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Mar 2025 | Jun 2024 | Jan 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Solar Pro 2$3.00
- Phi-4-mini$1.35
- Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Solar Pro 2, Phi-4-mini or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Phi-4-mini (56) and Solar Pro 2 (51). It leads on inputs & features and context window. 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, Solar Pro 2, Phi-4-mini or Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite?
Phi-4-mini is cheaper at $0.075 input / $0.30 output per million tokens (official Azure API price). Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Google API price); Solar Pro 2 costs $0.25 input / $0.25 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 $0.175 for Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite (1.3× as much) and $0.25 for Solar Pro 2 (1.9× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Solar Pro 2 has not been scored yet, Phi-4-mini has not been scored yet and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Solar Pro 2, Phi-4-mini and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite 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?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite has the largest context window at 1,048,576 tokens, against 128,000 for Phi-4-mini and 65,536 for Solar Pro 2. Maximum output per response: Solar Pro 2 up to 8,192, Phi-4-mini up to 4,096, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Solar Pro 2 accepts text; Phi-4-mini accepts text; Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite accepts text, images, PDFs, audio and video. Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Phi-4-mini publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Solar Pro 2 and Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite is the newest, released Jun 17, 2025. Solar Pro 2 came out May 20, 2025; Phi-4-mini came out Feb 26, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Solar Pro 2 Mar 2025, Phi-4-mini Jun 2024, Gemini 2.5 Flash-Lite Jan 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.
