Model Comparison

Claude 3 Opus vs Phi 4 Mini

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

9 benchmarks

Claude 3 Opus outperforms in 8 benchmarks (ARC-C, BIG-Bench Hard, GPQA, GSM8k, HellaSwag, MGSM, MMLU, MMLU-Pro), while Phi 4 Mini is better at 1 benchmark (MATH).

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus
Input tokens$15.00
Output tokens$75.00
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 Opus specifies input context (200,000 tokens). Only Claude 3 Opus specifies output context (200,000 tokens).

Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
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 Opus supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 Mini 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 4 Mini

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi 4 Mini

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3 Opus was released on 2024-02-29, while Phi 4 Mini was released on 2025-02-01.

Phi 4 Mini is 11 months newer than Claude 3 Opus.

Claude 3 Opus

Feb 29, 2024

2.1 years ago

Phi 4 Mini

Feb 1, 2025

1.2 years ago

11mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Phi 4 Mini has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-06-01, while Claude 3 Opus'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 Opus's cutoff date.

Claude 3 Opus

—

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 ARC-C score (96.4% vs 83.7%)
Higher BIG-Bench Hard score (86.8% vs 70.4%)
Higher GPQA score (50.4% vs 25.2%)
Higher GSM8k score (95.0% vs 88.6%)
Higher HellaSwag score (95.4% vs 69.1%)
Higher MGSM score (90.7% vs 63.9%)
Higher MMLU score (86.8% vs 67.3%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (68.5% vs 52.8%)
Microsoft
Has open weights
Higher MATH score (64.0% vs 60.1%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3 Opus
Microsoft
Phi 4 Mini

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3 Opus vs Phi 4 Mini

Claude 3 Opus significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus scores ARC-C: 96.4%, HellaSwag: 95.4%, GSM8k: 95.0%, MGSM: 90.7%, BIG-Bench Hard: 86.8%. Phi 4 Mini scores GSM8k: 88.6%, ARC-C: 83.7%, BoolQ: 81.2%, OpenBookQA: 79.2%, PIQA: 77.6%.
Claude 3 Opus 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 Opus is developed by Anthropic and Phi 4 Mini is developed by Microsoft.