| Signal | Phi 4 | Delta | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 33 | -33 | |
Benchmarks | 68 | -12 | |
Pricing | 0 | -2 | |
Context window size | 67 | -16 | |
Recency | 53 | -25 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -10 | |
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 6 | 6 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
Microsoft
DeepSeek
Phi 4 saves you $139.00/month
That's $1668.00/year compared to R1 0528 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Phi 4 | R1 0528 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 60 | 78 | R1 0528 |
| Rank | #223 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Quality Rank | #223 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Adoption Rank | #223 | #89 | R1 0528 |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 16K | 164K | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | $0.07/$0.14/M | $0.45/$2.15/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 33 | 67 | R1 0528 |
| Benchmarks | 68 | 80 | R1 0528 |
| Pricing | 0 | 2 | R1 0528 |
| Context window size | 67 | 83 | R1 0528 |
| Recency | 53 | 79 | R1 0528 |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 80 | R1 0528 |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 60/100 (rank #223), placing it in the top 23% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 78/100 (rank #89), placing it in the top 70% of all 290 models tracked.
R1 0528 has a 18-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably stronger performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Phi 4 offers 92% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $3.08/month with Phi 4 vs $39.00/month with R1 0528 - a $35.93 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Phi 4 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (164K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.14/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (78/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
R1 0528 clearly outperforms Phi 4 with a significant 18.1-point lead. For most general use cases, R1 0528 is the stronger choice. However, Phi 4 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Phi 4
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Phi 4
92% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Phi 4
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Phi 4
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Phi 4
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Microsoft
| Capability | Phi 4 | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Microsoft
DeepSeek
Phi 4 saves you $3.11/month
That's 92% cheaper than R1 0528 at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Phi 4 | R1 0528 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 16K | 164K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Jan 10, 2025 | May 28, 2025 |
R1 0528 scores 78/100 (rank #89) compared to Phi 4's 60/100 (rank #223), giving it a 18-point advantage. R1 0528 is the stronger overall choice, though Phi 4 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Phi 4 is ranked #223 and R1 0528 is ranked #89 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Phi 4 is cheaper at $0.14/M output tokens vs R1 0528's $2.15/M output tokens - 15.4x more expensive. Input token pricing: Phi 4 at $0.07/M vs R1 0528 at $0.45/M.
R1 0528 has a larger context window of 163,840 tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,384 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.