zfn9
Published on May 12, 2025

Compact SLM Showdown: Is Phi-4-mini or o1-mini the Smarter Choice?

The world of artificial intelligence has seen rapid progress, and small language models (SLMs) are now packing more power than ever. Compact, fast, and resource-efficient, these models are ideal for real-time applications, on- device inference, and low-latency tools.

Among the latest SLMs gaining attention are Phi-4-mini by Microsoft and o1-mini by OpenAI. Both are designed for high-quality reasoning and coding, making them ideal for developers, researchers, and tech teams working on STEM applications.

This post will do a detailed comparison of Phi-4-mini vs o1-mini. This guide will assess them based on architecture, benchmarks, reasoning skills, and real-world coding challenges. By the end, you’ll know which model suits your specific needs.

What is Phi-4-mini?

Phi-4-mini is a cutting-edge small language model developed by Microsoft. Despite having only 3.8 billion parameters, it’s built for serious reasoning, math problem-solving, and programmatic tasks. One of its standout features is its efficiency in edge environments—devices or applications where computing power is limited.

Architecture and Design

The GQA mechanism allows Phi-4-mini to deliver faster inference while maintaining the quality of multi-head attention, effectively balancing speed and performance.

Key Features

What is o1-mini?

o1-mini, created by OpenAI, is a lean, fast, and cost-efficient small model designed to be practical and reliable. While OpenAI hasn’t disclosed its parameter count, its performance suggests that it is extremely well-optimized.

Architecture and Design

Though the o1-mini lacks architectural extras like GQA, it makes up for it in raw performance across various tasks.

Key Features

Phi-4-mini vs o1-mini: Side-by-Side Model Comparison

Feature Phi-4-mini o1-mini
Architecture Decoder-only with GQA Standard transformer
Parameters 3.8B Not disclosed
Context Window 128K tokens 128K tokens
Attention Grouped Query Attention Not detailed
Embeddings Shared input-output Not specified
Performance Focus High precision in math and logic Fast, practical solutions
Best Use Case Complex logic, edge deployment General logic and coding tasks

Summary: Phi-4-mini offers architectural sophistication and mathematical muscle, while o1-mini leads to user-friendliness, speed, and code clarity.

Reasoning Performance in Benchmarks

To see how well these models perform in reasoning tasks, this guide compared them against established benchmarks like AIME 2024, MATH-500, and GPQA Diamond. These datasets are designed to test abstract thinking, logical reasoning, and problem-solving capabilities.

Benchmark Scores

Model AIME MATH-500 GPQA Diamond
o1-mini 63.6 90.0 60.0
Phi-4-mini (reasoning-tuned) 50.0 90.4 49.0
DeepSeek-R1 Qwen 7B 53.3 91.4 49.5
DeepSeek-R1 Llama 8B 43.3 86.9 47.3
Bespoke-Stratos 7B 20.0 82.0 37.8
LLaMA 3-2 3B 6.7 44.4 25.3

Despite its smaller size, Phi-4-mini outperforms several 7B and 8B models, especially in MATH-500. On the other hand, o1-mini leads in AIME and GPQA, proving its strength in general logical reasoning.

Where Does Each Model Work Best?

Choosing between Phi-4-mini and o1-mini depends heavily on your intended deployment environment, performance expectations, and resource constraints. While both models excel as compact reasoning and coding engines, their architectural differences make them better suited for specific use cases.

Where Phi-4-mini Excels

Where o1-mini Shines

Conclusion

Both Phi-4-mini and o1-mini are highly capable small language models, each with unique strengths. o1-mini stands out with its speed, accuracy, and well- structured coding outputs, making it ideal for general-purpose reasoning and software development tasks. On the other hand, Phi-4-mini shines in mathematical reasoning and edge deployments thanks to its efficient architecture and function-calling capabilities.

While Phi-4-mini sometimes overanalyzes, it provides deeper insights into complex scenarios. o1-mini is better suited for users seeking fast, clear, and reliable results. Ultimately, the best choice depends on whether your priority is speed and clarity or depth and precision.