Skip to content
ModelCap

Model decision surface

Compare AI models

Start with Gemma 3 4B and MediPhi Guidelines, or choose any two current ranked language models. Compare capability evidence, price, context, provider availability, and weight access without pretending one field decides every use case.

Current public data

Gemma 3 4B vs MediPhi Guidelines

Live dataset updated 9/22/2026, 9:31:46 PM UTC

Open 1200×630 evidence receipt
Factual comparison of Gemma 3 4B and MediPhi Guidelines
Field
ModelCap position#186#189
Index score24.123.0
EvidenceMeasured2 public benchmark observations across 2 boardsInheritedfinetune of microsoft/Phi-3.5-mini-instruct · finetune (100%)
Input / 1M$0.05Unavailable
Output / 1M$0.10Unavailable
Pricing statusfreshunavailable
Context131K—
Providers10
Weight accessGated accessOpen weights

Decision facts

  • Gemma 3 4B is #186; MediPhi Guidelines is #189 on the same current language board.
  • Index scores are 24.1 for Gemma 3 4B and 23.0 for MediPhi Guidelines. Their published uncertainty intervals overlap, so the rank difference alone does not establish a reliable capability advantage for your workload.
  • Evidence differs: Gemma 3 4B is Measured; MediPhi Guidelines is Inherited.
  • Weight access differs: Gemma 3 4B is gated; MediPhi Guidelines is open.
  • ModelCap currently lists 1 providers for Gemma 3 4B and 0 for MediPhi Guidelines.

These are separate published fields, not a synthetic winner. ModelCap does not collapse price, access, context, and capability evidence into a hidden recommendation score.

Each comparison page is a permanent, shareable URL with the same live figures as this tool: ModelCap Index position, API pricing, context window, provider count, weight access and every shared benchmark board.