Phi-4 Reasoning vs o3
Benchmark Performance
Available Benchmarks
Technical Differences
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Phi-4-reasoning | o3 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Microsoft | OpenAI |
| Family | Phi 4 Reasoning | O3 |
| Model | Phi-4-reasoning | o3 |
| Version | Phi-4-reasoning | o3 |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | 2025-04-30 | 2025-04-16 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | 2024-06-01 |
| Input modalities | Text | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 33K | 200K |
| Total parameters | 14.7B | Unknown |
| Active parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | mit | Unknown |
| Open weights | Yes | No |
| API available | Unknown | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Provider access | Unknown | Openai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning | chat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools |
12 comparable fields · 10 material differences · Pair passes the primary-source comparison gate
Phi-4 Reasoning Capabilities
o3 Capabilities
Internal Comparison Graph
Related Comparisons
| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs | GPT-6 AstraOpenAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Claude Fable 5.1Anthropic | vs | Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
 Gemini 3.1 ProGoogle DeepMind | vs | Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
 DeepSeek-V4-ProDeepSeek | vs | Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs | Grok 4.6xAI | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs |  Qwen3.8-MaxQwen | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs |  Kimi-K3Moonshot AI | cross-developer peerstext |
 MiniMax-M3MiniMax | vs | Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs |  GLM-5.3Z.ai | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs |  Hy4 previewTencent | cross-developer peerstext |
Seed 2.1 ProByteDance Seed | vs | Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | cross-developer peerstext |
Phi-4-reasoningMicrosoft | vs |  Mistral Large 3Mistral AI | cross-developer peerstext |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Phi-4 Reasoning vs o3 FAQs
Is Phi-4 Reasoning or o3 better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Phi-4 Reasoning and o3, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
Only o3 has a directly sourced input price: $1.00 per million tokens. Only o3 has a directly sourced output price: $4.00 per million tokens.
Which has a larger context window, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
o3 has the larger sourced context window. Phi-4 Reasoning supports 33K and o3 supports 200K.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
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 o3 be self-hosted?+
Phi-4 Reasoning is the only model in this pair currently marked as self-hostable. Phi-4 Reasoning is open weight; o3 is not marked open weight.
Can Phi-4 Reasoning and o3 understand images?+
Phi-4 Reasoning is not documented with image input; o3 is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
Neither has a larger sourced maximum output. Phi-4 Reasoning is — and o3 is 100K.
Do Phi-4 Reasoning and o3 support reasoning and tool use?+
Phi-4 Reasoning: reasoning. o3: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
Phi-4 Reasoning has 0 sourced provider routes; o3 has 2, so o3 has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Phi-4 Reasoning or o3?+
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.