| Signal | Mistral Small 3 | Delta | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | +17 | |
Pricing | 0 | -- | |
Context window size | 72 | +5 | |
Recency | 56 | +4 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -- | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -67 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 1 wins |
9
days higher
3
days
18
days higher
Mistral AI
Microsoft
Mistral Small 3 saves you $4.50/month
That's $54.00/year compared to Phi 4 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Mistral Small 3 | Phi 4 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 59 | 59 | Phi 4 |
| Rank | #234 | #233 | Phi 4 |
| Quality Rank | #234 | #233 | Phi 4 |
| Adoption Rank | #234 | #233 | Phi 4 |
| Parameters | 24B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 33K | 16K | Mistral Small 3 |
| Pricing | $0.05/$0.08/M | $0.07/$0.14/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 33 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Pricing | 0 | 0 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Context window size | 72 | 67 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Recency | 56 | 52 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 70 | Mistral Small 3 |
| Benchmarks | -- | 68 | Phi 4 |
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 59/100 (rank #234), placing it in the top 20% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 59/100 (rank #233), placing it in the top 20% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Mistral Small 3 offers 37% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $1.95/month with Mistral Small 3 vs $3.08/month with Phi 4 - a $1.13 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. Mistral Small 3 also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (33K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.08/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (59/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Mistral Small 3 and Phi 4 are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.19999999999999574 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Mistral Small 3
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Mistral Small 3
37% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Mistral Small 3
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Mistral Small 3
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Mistral Small 3
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Mistral AI
| Capability | Mistral Small 3 | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Callingdiffers | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Mistral AI
Microsoft
Mistral Small 3 saves you $0.0990/month
That's 35% cheaper than Phi 4 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 | Mistral Small 3 | Phi 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 33K | 16K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 16,384 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Jan 30, 2025 | Jan 10, 2025 |
Phi 4 scores 59/100 (rank #233) compared to Mistral Small 3's 59/100 (rank #234), giving it a 0-point advantage. Phi 4 is the stronger overall choice, though Mistral Small 3 may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Mistral Small 3 is ranked #234 and Phi 4 is ranked #233 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.
Mistral Small 3 is cheaper at $0.08/M output tokens vs Phi 4's $0.14/M output tokens - 1.8x more expensive. Input token pricing: Mistral Small 3 at $0.05/M vs Phi 4 at $0.07/M.
Mistral Small 3 has a larger context window of 32,768 tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,384 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.