Compare/Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct vs JT-35B-Flash

Phi-4 Multimodal InstructvsJT-35B-Flash

Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.

Microsoft

Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct

Input
$0/M
Output
$0/M
Speed
17 tok/s
TTFT
0.88s
China Mobile

JT-35B-Flash

Input
Output
Speed
TTFT

Winner by Category

Cheaper
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
Faster (tok/s)
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
Lower Latency
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
Benchmarks (0-1)
JT-35B-Flash

Pricing Comparison

MetricPhi-4 Multimodal InstructJT-35B-Flash
Input ($/M tokens)$0
Output ($/M tokens)$0
Cost for 1M input + 100K output tokens:
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct$0.00

Speed Comparison

Output Speed (tokens/s) — higher is better
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
17 tok/s
JT-35B-Flash
Time to First Token (seconds) — lower is better
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct
0.88s
JT-35B-Flash

Editorial Analysis

Verdict. JT-35B-Flash takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.

Pricing. Pricing varies significantly between these models — check the table above for the exact per-token rates. Many production workloads actually surface input-token cost (retrieval-augmented prompts, code-context windows), so factor both directions.

Strengths. Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct is strongest on Intelligence Index (4.2). JT-35B-Flash leads on Intelligence Index (29.0).

Speed. Speed data is incomplete for this pair; benchmark and price should decide.

Provider. Microsoft and China Mobile sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Microsoft tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while China Mobile often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.

Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.

Benchmark Comparison

Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks

Intelligence Index
4.229.0
Coding Index
Math Index
GPQA Diamond
MMLU-Pro
LiveCodeBench
AIME 2025
MATH-500
Humanity's Last Exam
SciCode
IFBench
TerminalBench
Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct0 wins
1 winsJT-35B-Flash

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct or JT-35B-Flash?

Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.00/M tokens vs $—/M for JT-35B-Flash.

Which model performs better on benchmarks?

JT-35B-Flash wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.

Which is faster for real-time applications?

Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct generates tokens faster at 17 tok/s vs — tok/s. Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct also has lower time-to-first-token (0.88s vs —s).

When should I use Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct vs JT-35B-Flash?

Choose based on your priorities: Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct for lower cost, JT-35B-Flash for stronger benchmark performance, and Phi-4 Multimodal Instruct for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.