Phi 4 vs Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Phi 4 costs 3.6x less per output token than Ternary Bonsai 2 27B ($0.14 vs $0.50 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- 24.7
- Output $/M
- $0.14
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.50
Phi 4 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Phi 4 for output tokens 3.6x cheaper ($0.14 vs $0.50 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Phi 4 has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Phi 4 has a AA Intelligence Index result, 5.9.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B takes 262K tokens against 16K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Phi 4
Phi 4 $0.0001, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B $0.0003 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Phi 4 not benchmarked, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
- Widest single gap
- None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
- Output price
- Phi 4 $0.14 against Ternary Bonsai 2 27B $0.50 per million output tokens, 3.6x apart.
- Context window
- Phi 4 takes 16K tokens, Ternary Bonsai 2 27B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.1% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | 1231 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1228 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 5.9 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 130.5 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index3 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| BALROG | 11.6% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) | 28.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 57.5% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 3.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 56.1% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1220 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1203 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1230 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Math Index | 18.0 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 18.0% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 13.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| MATH level 5 | 64.9% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1246 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1254 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 71.4% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| MMLU | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: science | 1206 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1202 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1241 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1199 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index19 boards measured
| Benchmark | Phi 4 | Ternary Bonsai 2 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 23.5% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 0.0% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | 62.6% | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text | 1217 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1201 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1181 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1231 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1197 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1212 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: German | 1222 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1158 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Korean | 1151 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: French | 1224 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Spanish | 1234 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1209 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1206 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1217 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1198 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1162 | Not measured | Only Phi 4 measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Phi 4 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Phi 4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Phi 4 costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Microsoft Phi 4 | PrismML Ternary Bonsai 2 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Microsoft | Prism-ml |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | January 10, 2025 | September 18, 2026 |
| Context window | 16K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.07 | $0.075 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.14 | $0.50 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Phi 4 better than Ternary Bonsai 2 27B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Phi 4 for output tokens 3.6x cheaper ($0.14 vs $0.50 per million).
Which is cheaper, Phi 4 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
Phi 4 costs $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B costs $0.075 and $0.50. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Phi 4 or Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
Ternary Bonsai 2 27B, with 262K tokens against 16K.
Has any benchmark tested both Phi 4 and Ternary Bonsai 2 27B?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Phi 4 has results on LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run), Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) and LMArena Text: coding; Ternary Bonsai 2 27B has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.