Model Comparison

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Claude 3.5 Haiku significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

5 benchmarks

Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 5 benchmarks (GPQA, HumanEval, MATH, MGSM, MMLU-Pro), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3.5 Haiku significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Cost data unavailable.

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input tokens$0.80
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerAWS Bedrock
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude 3.5 Haiku specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3.5 Haiku specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Claude 3.5 Haiku is 2 months newer than Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Oct 22, 2024

1.5 years ago

2mo newer
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

1.6 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Higher GPQA score (41.6% vs 36.8%)
Higher HumanEval score (88.1% vs 70.7%)
Higher MATH score (69.4% vs 59.5%)
Higher MGSM score (85.6% vs 58.7%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (65.0% vs 45.3%)
Microsoft
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Claude 3.5 Haiku significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3.5 Haiku is made by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude 3.5 Haiku scores HumanEval: 88.1%, MGSM: 85.6%, DROP: 83.1%, MATH: 69.4%, MMLU-Pro: 65.0%. Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct scores ARC-C: 91.0%, OpenBookQA: 89.6%, GSM8k: 88.7%, PIQA: 88.6%, RULER: 87.1%.
Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K tokens and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct supports an unknown number of tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude 3.5 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.