Model Comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

10 benchmarks

Claude 3 Opus outperforms in 10 benchmarks (ARC-C, BIG-Bench Hard, GPQA, GSM8k, HellaSwag, HumanEval, MATH, MGSM, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sun May 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Claude 3 Opus specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3 Opus specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Claude 3 Opus

Input200,000 tokens

Output200,000 tokens

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Input- tokens

Output- tokens

Sun May 17 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude 3 Opus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct does not.

Claude 3 Opus can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3 Opus

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is 6 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3 Opus

Feb 29, 2024

2.2 years ago

Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

1.7 years ago

5mo newer

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

Claude 3 Opus

View details

Anthropic

Larger context window (200,000 tokens)

Supports multimodal inputs

Higher ARC-C score (96.4% vs 91.0%)

Higher BIG-Bench Hard score (86.8% vs 79.1%)

Higher GPQA score (50.4% vs 36.8%)

Higher GSM8k score (95.0% vs 88.7%)

Higher HellaSwag score (95.4% vs 83.8%)

Higher HumanEval score (84.9% vs 70.7%)

Higher MATH score (60.1% vs 59.5%)

Higher MGSM score (90.7% vs 58.7%)

Higher MMLU score (86.8% vs 78.9%)

Higher MMLU-Pro score (68.5% vs 45.3%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	Claude 3 Opus	Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct.

Which is better, Claude 3 Opus or Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3 Opus 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.

How does Claude 3 Opus compare to Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct in benchmarks?

Claude 3 Opus scores ARC-C: 96.4%, HellaSwag: 95.4%, GSM8k: 95.0%, MGSM: 90.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 86.8%. 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 Opus and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

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

Who makes Claude 3 Opus and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct?

Claude 3 Opus is developed by Anthropic and Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct is developed by Microsoft.