Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi 4
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads the LLM Stats Score 19.1 to 5.4. Phi 4 is 68.6x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Microsoft · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads the overall LLM Stats Score 19.1 to 5.4, ranking #213 overall.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude 3.5 Sonnet wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Phi 4 is roughly 68.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet also accepts a larger context window (200,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- overall performance matters — it scores 19.1 and ranks #213 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
Choose Phi 4
- cost matters — it's about 68.6x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2024
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
19 reported for Claude 3.5 Sonnet · 13 for Phi 4
Claude 3.5 Sonnet outperforms in 6 benchmarks (DROP, GPQA, HumanEval, MGSM, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Phi 4 is better at 1 benchmark (MATH).
Claude 3.5 Sonnet significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude 3.5 Sonnet ($3.00/1M tokens) is 42.9x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.07/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude 3.5 Sonnet ($15.00/1M tokens) is 107.1x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.14/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Sonnet is more expensive than Phi 4.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude 3.5 Sonnet accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,384 tokens. Claude 3.5 Sonnet can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Phi 4 is limited to 16,384 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 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
Phi 4
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 uses MIT.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
MIT
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude 3.5 Sonnet was released on 2024-10-22, while Phi 4 was released on 2024-12-12.
Phi 4 is 2 months newer than Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
Oct 22, 2024
1.9 years ago
Dec 12, 2024
1.8 years ago
1mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Phi 4 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet's cutoff date is not specified.
We can confirm Phi 4's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude 3.5 Sonnet's cutoff date.
—
Jun 2024
Provider Availability
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. Phi 4 is available from DeepInfra.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Phi 4
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Phi 4 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi 4.