Skip to content

Google vs Microsoft

Google (41 models) vs Microsoft (2 models) - compared across composite scores, pricing, capabilities, and context windows.

Models
41
Avg Score
71
Price Range
$0.100 - $12.00
per 1M output tokens
4 free9 open source1.0M max context
Models
2
Avg Score
45
Top Model
Score: 60
Price Range
$0.140 - $0.620
per 1M output tokens
2 open source66K max context

Head-to-Head: Google vs Microsoft Model Matchups

Capability Comparison

CapabilityGoogleMicrosoftLeader
Vision
37/410/2Google
Reasoning
31/410/2Google
Function Calling
29/410/2Google
JSON Mode
39/412/2Google
Web Search
28/410/2Google
Streaming
39/412/2Google
Image Output
7/410/2Google

Pricing Comparison

MetricGoogleMicrosoft
Cheapest Input (per 1M tokens)$0.050
Gemma 3 4B
$0.070
Phi 4
Cheapest Output (per 1M tokens)$0.100$0.140
Most Expensive Input (per 1M tokens)$2.00
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools
$0.620
WizardLM-2 8x22B
Most Expensive Output (per 1M tokens)$12.00$0.620
Free Models40
Max Context Window1.0M66K

All Google Models (41)

ModelScoreInput $/MOutput $/M
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview Custom Tools92$2.00$12.00
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview92$2.00$12.00
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview (batch)92$1.00$6.00
Gemini 3 Flash Preview88$0.500$3.00
Gemini 3 Flash Preview (batch)88$0.250$1.50
Gemini 2.5 Pro84$1.25$10.00
Gemini 2.5 Pro (batch)84$0.625$5.00
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 06-0584$1.25$10.00
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview 05-0684$1.25$10.00
Gemma 4 31B81$0.100$0.340
Gemma 4 31B (free)81FreeFree
Gemini 3.6 Flash80$1.50$7.50
Gemini 3.6 Flash (batch)80$0.750$3.75
Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite Preview79$0.250$1.50
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite79$0.100$0.400
Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite (batch)79$0.050$0.200
Gemini 2.5 Flash79$0.300$2.50
Gemini 2.5 Flash (batch)79$0.150$1.25
Gemini 3.5 Flash79$1.50$9.00
Gemini 3.5 Flash (batch)79$0.750$4.50

All Microsoft Models (2)

ModelScoreInput $/MOutput $/M
Phi 460$0.070$0.140
WizardLM-2 8x22B29$0.620$0.620
Frequently Asked Questions

Google's 34-model portfolio reflects a fragmentation strategy with 15 open source variants and 9 free models, while Microsoft focuses on just 2 proprietary models (Phi 3.5 and Phi 4) scoring 25/100 and 32/100 respectively. This 17x model count difference means Google users face more decision complexity but gain access to specialized options like Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite Preview (60/100 score) for cost-sensitive deployments at $0.040/M tokens versus Microsoft's minimum $0.140/M.

Google's 79% vision coverage across models like Gemini 1.5 Pro and PaLM variants makes them the only viable choice for multimodal applications, while Microsoft's complete absence of vision capabilities limits Phi models to text-only use cases. This gap is particularly striking given that Google also maintains reasoning capabilities in 16/34 models (47%) while offering vision at prices starting from $0.040/M tokens.

Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite Preview achieves 60/100 by leveraging 1M token context windows and multimodal capabilities, while Microsoft's Phi 4 peaks at 32/100 with only 66K context and no vision support. The average scores tell an even starker story: Google's 45/100 mean across 34 models versus Microsoft's 29/100 across just 2 models suggests Microsoft is competing on efficiency rather than raw capability.

Microsoft's 2 models integrate seamlessly with Azure AI services but cost 3.5x more at minimum ($0.140/M vs Google's $0.040/M) while lacking the vision, reasoning, and function calling features available in 16-27 of Google's 34 models. Azure-native teams requiring multimodal AI must either accept Google's integration overhead or wait for Microsoft to expand beyond text-only Phi models.

Google provides 9 free models including Gemma variants while Microsoft offers zero free options, forcing startups to pay $0.140-$0.620/M tokens from day one. Google's pricing spans a 300x range ($0.040-$12.00/M) enabling gradual scaling from free Gemma models to premium Gemini variants, whereas Microsoft's narrow 4.4x range ($0.140-$0.620/M) targets mid-tier enterprise deployments exclusively.

Microsoft open sources 100% of their portfolio (both Phi models) but with mediocre scores of 25-32/100, while Google open sources 44% (15/34 models) including higher-performing Gemma and T5 variants. Google's selective approach preserves commercial advantage in their top-tier Gemini models (60/100) while Microsoft's all-in open source strategy suggests they're prioritizing ecosystem adoption over direct model monetization.

Google vs Microsoft - AI Provider Comparison (2026) | LM Market Cap