Model Comparison

Gemma 3n E4B vs Phi 4 Mini

Gemma 3n E4B has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Gemma 3n E4B outperforms in 4 benchmarks (BoolQ, HellaSwag, PIQA, Winogrande), while Phi 4 Mini is better at 3 benchmarks (ARC-C, BIG-Bench Hard, Social IQa).

Gemma 3n E4B has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Wed Apr 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Wed Apr 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 3n E4B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

4.2B diff

Gemma 3n E4B has 4.2B more parameters than Phi 4 Mini, making it 108.3% larger.

Google
Gemma 3n E4B
8.0Bparameters
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini
3.8Bparameters
8.0B
Gemma 3n E4B
3.8B
Phi 4 Mini

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Gemma 3n E4B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 Mini does not.

Gemma 3n E4B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemma 3n E4B

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi 4 Mini

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 3n E4B is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 Mini uses MIT.

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

Gemma 3n E4B

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi 4 Mini

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 3n E4B was released on 2025-06-26, while Phi 4 Mini was released on 2025-02-01.

Gemma 3n E4B is 5 months newer than Phi 4 Mini.

Gemma 3n E4B

Jun 26, 2025

10 months ago

4mo newer
Phi 4 Mini

Feb 1, 2025

1.2 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Both models have the same knowledge cutoff date of 2024-06-01.

They should have similar awareness of historical events and information up to this date.

Gemma 3n E4B

Jun 2024

Phi 4 Mini

Jun 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Google
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher BoolQ score (81.6% vs 81.2%)
Higher HellaSwag score (78.6% vs 69.1%)
Higher PIQA score (81.0% vs 77.6%)
Higher Winogrande score (71.7% vs 67.0%)
Microsoft
Has open weights
Higher ARC-C score (83.7% vs 61.6%)
Higher BIG-Bench Hard score (70.4% vs 52.9%)
Higher Social IQa score (72.5% vs 50.0%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 3n E4B
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 3n E4B vs Phi 4 Mini

Gemma 3n E4B has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Gemma 3n E4B is made by Google and Phi 4 Mini is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 3n E4B scores ARC-E: 81.6%, BoolQ: 81.6%, PIQA: 81.0%, HellaSwag: 78.6%, Winogrande: 71.7%. Phi 4 Mini scores GSM8k: 88.6%, ARC-C: 83.7%, BoolQ: 81.2%, OpenBookQA: 79.2%, PIQA: 77.6%.
Key differences include multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 3n E4B is developed by Google and Phi 4 Mini is developed by Microsoft.