Microsoft Phi-4 vs Llama 4 Scout
Performance benchmarks + pricing comparison — updated April 2026
Microsoft Phi-4
MicrosoftMicrosoft's compact 14B model with strong reasoning and coding capability. Excellent value for small-scale deployments.
| Input | $0.100/M |
| Output | $0.300/M |
| Context | 128K tokens |
| Best For | Edge deployments, local inference, budget coding |
| Benchmark | 45/100 |
Llama 4 Scout
MetaMeta's Llama 4 mid-tier multimodal model. Native multimodal with efficient inference.
| Input | $0.200/M |
| Output | $0.800/M |
| Context | 10M tokens |
| Best For | Multimodal applications, image + text tasks |
Cost Comparison by Scenario
Estimated cost per project with 30% cache hit rate. Actual costs may vary based on usage patterns.
| Scenario | Microsoft Phi-4 | Llama 4 Scout | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Script (1K lines) | $0.01 | $0.03 | Microsoft Phi-4 saves $0.02 (60%) |
| Medium Feature (10K lines) | $0.10 | $0.23 | Microsoft Phi-4 saves $0.14 (59%) |
| Large Project (50K lines) | $0.47 | $1.15 | Microsoft Phi-4 saves $0.68 (59%) |
| Code Review (5K lines) | $0.02 | $0.06 | Microsoft Phi-4 saves $0.03 (55%) |
Verdict
Microsoft Phi-4 wins on both price and performance — $0.100/M input with a benchmark score of N/A/100.
For most developers, this is the clear choice between these two models.
Compare with Other Models
Claude Sonnet 4
AnthropicAnthropic's balanced model for coding and general tasks. Best price-performance ratio in the Claude family.
Claude Opus 4
AnthropicAnthropic's most powerful model. Best for complex reasoning and challenging coding tasks.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
AnthropicPrevious generation Sonnet. Still excellent for coding tasks at the same price point.
Claude 3.5 Haiku
AnthropicFast, cost-effective model for high-volume tasks. Great for code review and simple queries.
Claude 3 Opus
AnthropicFirst generation Opus. Highest reasoning capability in the Claude 3 family.
Claude 3 Sonnet
AnthropicFirst generation Sonnet. Balanced performance for general tasks.