Model Comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi 4 Mini

Claude 3.5 Sonnet significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

7 benchmarks

Claude 3.5 Sonnet outperforms in 7 benchmarks (BIG-Bench Hard, GPQA, GSM8k, MATH, MGSM, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Phi 4 Mini is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Mon Apr 06 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
Mon Apr 06 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Input tokens$3.00
Output tokens$15.00
Best providerAnthropic
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini
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 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 4 Mini
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Mon Apr 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 Mini 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 4 Mini

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi 4 Mini 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 4 Mini

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Sonnet was released on 2024-10-22, while Phi 4 Mini was released on 2025-02-01.

Phi 4 Mini is 3 months newer than Claude 3.5 Sonnet.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

Oct 22, 2024

1.5 years ago

Phi 4 Mini

Feb 1, 2025

1.2 years ago

3mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Phi 4 Mini 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 Mini's training data extends to 2024-06-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude 3.5 Sonnet's cutoff date.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet

—

Phi 4 Mini

Jun 2024

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher BIG-Bench Hard score (93.1% vs 70.4%)
Higher GPQA score (67.2% vs 25.2%)
Higher GSM8k score (96.4% vs 88.6%)
Higher MATH score (78.3% vs 64.0%)
Higher MGSM score (91.6% vs 63.9%)
Higher MMLU score (90.4% vs 67.3%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (77.6% vs 52.8%)
Microsoft
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Phi 4 Mini

Claude 3.5 Sonnet significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3.5 Sonnet is made by Anthropic and Phi 4 Mini is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores GSM8k: 96.4%, DocVQA: 95.2%, AI2D: 94.7%, HumanEval: 93.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 93.1%. Phi 4 Mini scores GSM8k: 88.6%, ARC-C: 83.7%, BoolQ: 81.2%, OpenBookQA: 79.2%, PIQA: 77.6%.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet supports 200K tokens and Phi 4 Mini 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 multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is developed by Anthropic and Phi 4 Mini is developed by Microsoft.