Model Comparison

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Phi 4Which is better in 2026?

Comparing Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4 across benchmarks, pricing, and capabilities.

Verdict: Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Phi 4 — which is better?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (by Google) and Phi 4 (by Microsoft) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

On price, Phi 4 is roughly 9.7x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite if…

  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jul 2026

Choose Phi 4 if…

  • cost matters — it's about 9.7x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

No common benchmarks found

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4don't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Phi 4 costs less

For input processing, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite ($0.30/1M tokens) is 4.3x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.07/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite ($2.50/1M tokens) is 17.9x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.14/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is more expensive than Phi 4.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Jul 23 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$2.50
Best providerGoogle
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.14
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,000 tokens. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite can generate longer responses up to 65,536 tokens, while Phi 4 is limited to 16,000 tokens.

Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output65,536 tokens
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input16,000 tokens
Output16,000 tokens
Thu Jul 23 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 does not.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi 4

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi 4

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite was released on 2026-07-21, while Phi 4 was released on 2024-12-12.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is 20 months newer than Phi 4.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Jul 21, 2026

2 days ago

1.6yr newer
Phi 4

Dec 12, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-03-31, while Phi 4 has a cutoff of 2024-06-01.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite has more recent training data (up to 2026-03-31), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Phi 4 (2024-06-01).

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

Mar 2026

1.8 yr newer
Phi 4

Jun 2024

Provider Availability

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is available from Google. Phi 4 is available from DeepInfra.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.50/1M

Phi 4

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.14/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Larger context window (1,048,576 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Microsoft
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
✓ Preferred
Phi 4
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite
Microsoft
Phi 4

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite vs Phi 4.

Which is better, Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite or Phi 4?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite (Google) and Phi 4 (Microsoft) each have strengths in different areas. Compare their benchmark scores, pricing, context windows, and capabilities above to determine which fits your needs.

How does Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite compare to Phi 4 in benchmarks?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite scores CharXiv-R: 76.5%, OSWorld-Verified: 74.0%, SWE-Bench Pro: 54.2%, Terminal-Bench 2.1: 54.0%, MLE-Bench: 39.2%. Phi 4 scores MMLU: 84.8%, HumanEval+: 82.8%, HumanEval: 82.6%, MGSM: 80.6%, MATH: 80.4%.

Is Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite cheaper than Phi 4?

Phi 4 is 4.3x cheaper for input tokens. Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite costs $0.30/M input and $2.50/M output via google. Phi 4 costs $0.07/M input and $0.14/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite supports 1.0M tokens and Phi 4 supports 16K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4?

Key differences include context window (1.0M vs 16K), input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.07/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite and Phi 4?

Gemini 3.5 Flash-Lite is developed by Google and Phi 4 is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons