Phi-4 Reasoning vs GLM 5V Turbo

At a Glance

Compare
Pricing and Limits
Context windowMaximum documented tokens33K200K
Model facts checkedAug 28, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
No Protocol-Matched Benchmark Yet.Results appear here only when both models share the same benchmark version, metric, evaluation protocol, and evidence class.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldPhi-4-reasoningGLM-5V-Turbo
DeveloperMicrosoftZ.ai
FamilyPhi 4 ReasoningGlm 5v
ModelPhi-4-reasoningGLM-5V-Turbo
VersionPhi-4-reasoningGLM-5V-Turbo
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2025-04-30Unknown
Knowledge cutoffUnknownUnknown
Input modalitiesTextText, Image, Video, Document
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window33K200K
Total parameters14.7BUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicensemitUnknown
Open weightsYesNo
API availableUnknownYes
Self-hostableYesNo
Provider accessUnknownZ.ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoningagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, tools, vision

Phi-4 Reasoning Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoning
Serving providers0
Canonical IDmicrosoft/Phi-4-reasoning

GLM 5V Turbo Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningtoolsvision
Serving providers1
Canonical IDzai-org/glm-5v-turbo

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Phi-4 Reasoning vs GLM 5V Turbo FAQs

Is Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Phi-4 Reasoning and GLM 5V Turbo, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

Neither model has a directly sourced input price in this comparison. Neither model has a directly sourced output price in this comparison.

Which has a larger context window, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

GLM 5V Turbo has the larger sourced context window. Phi-4 Reasoning supports 33K and GLM 5V Turbo supports 200K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.

Can Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo be self-hosted?+

Phi-4 Reasoning is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Phi-4 Reasoning is open weight; GLM 5V Turbo is not marked open weight.

Can Phi-4 Reasoning and GLM 5V Turbo understand images?+

Phi-4 Reasoning is not documented with image input; GLM 5V Turbo is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Phi-4 Reasoning is — and GLM 5V Turbo is 131K.

Do Phi-4 Reasoning and GLM 5V Turbo support reasoning and tool use?+

Phi-4 Reasoning: reasoning. GLM 5V Turbo: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

Phi-4 Reasoning has 0 sourced provider routes; GLM 5V Turbo has 1, so GLM 5V Turbo has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Phi-4 Reasoning or GLM 5V Turbo?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback