The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads the LLM Stats Score 19.0 to 1.9.

Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads the overall LLM Stats Score 19.0 to 1.9, ranking #223 overall.

In the 8 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude 3.5 Sonnet wins 8; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet

  • overall performance matters — it scores 19.0 and ranks #223 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 8 of 8 exact shared results
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2024

Choose Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Anthropic
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
19.0
#223
1.9
#334
Reasoning
20.1
#205
1.4
#327
Coding
11.3
#169
-3.9
#269
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
8 of 8
0 of 8
Input price
$3.00 / M
— / M
Output price
$15.00 / M
— / M
Context window
200,000
—

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Math
23.2#138
4.3#290
Finance
23.3#69
4.3#179
Legal
23.3#57
4.3#166
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

19 reported for Claude 3.5 Sonnet · 31 for Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

8 shared

Claude 3.5 Sonnet outperforms in 8 benchmarks (BIG-Bench Hard, GPQA, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MGSM, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Oct 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

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

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Thu Oct 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct does not.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Sonnet 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 Sonnet

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

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

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

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Oct 22, 2024

2.0 years ago

2mo newer
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

2.1 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?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet
✓ Preferred
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads the LLM Stats Score 19.0 to 1.9. Claude 3.5 Sonnet is made by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude 3.5 Sonnet compare to Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct in benchmarks?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores GSM8k: 96.4%, DocVQA: 95.2%, AI2D: 94.7%, HumanEval: 93.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 93.1%. Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct scores ARC-C: 91.0%, OpenBookQA: 89.6%, GSM8k: 88.7%, PIQA: 88.6%, RULER: 87.1%.

What are the context window sizes for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet 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.

What are the main differences between Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (19.0 vs 1.9), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is developed by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons