Model comparison
Gemini 2.5 Pro vs Phi-4
Head-to-head evidence from 11 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Gemini 2.5 Pro #75 (Supported); Phi-4 #202 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Gemini 2.5 Pro and Phi-4 share 11 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to Gemini 2.5 Pro; 0 to Phi-4.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 11
- Gemini 2.5 Pro only
- 13
- Phi-4 only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Phi-4 is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 11 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Gemini 2.5 Pro is priced at $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Phi-4. Gemini 2.5 Pro has the larger context window at 1M, compared with 16K for Phi-4.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Δ | Phi-4 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Gemini 2.5 Pro63.8 | MarginNo overlap | Phi-4Not measured |
| Knowledge | Gemini 2.5 Pro27.4 | MarginNo overlap | Phi-4Not measured |
| Math | Gemini 2.5 Pro11.6 | MarginNo overlap | Phi-4Not measured |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Phi-4 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro$1.25 input / $10 output | Phi-4$0 input / $0 output | Phi-4 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Gemini 2.5 Pro117 tok/s | Phi-435 tok/s | Gemini 2.5 Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Gemini 2.5 Pro21.19 s | Phi-42.02 s | Phi-4 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Gemini 2.5 Pro1M | Phi-416K | Gemini 2.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Phi-4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 18.8% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 25.8% | 4.9% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 84.4% | 57.5% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-HLESource | 21.1% | 4.1% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -14.3% | -56.7% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 39.0% | 13.2% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.4% | 80.5% | Phi-4 leads |
Math2 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Gemini 2.5 Pro | Phi-4 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 48.7% | 23.5% | Gemini 2.5 Pro leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Gemini 2.5 Pro and Phi-4 on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Gemini 2.5 Pro and Phi-4 today?
Gemini 2.5 Pro: $1.25 input / $10.00 output per 1M tokens Phi-4: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.