Model Comparison

Claude Opus 4.5 vs Phi 4Which is better in 2026?

Claude Opus 4.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Phi 4 is 114.3x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Claude Opus 4.5 vs Phi 4 — which is better?

Claude Opus 4.5 (by Anthropic) and Phi 4 (by Microsoft) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Claude Opus 4.5 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Phi 4 is better at 0 benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, Phi 4 is roughly 114.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude Opus 4.5 also accepts a larger context window (200,000 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Choose Claude Opus 4.5 if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 1 of 1 shared benchmarks
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Nov 2025

Choose Phi 4 if…

  • cost matters — it's about 114.3x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

1 benchmarks

Claude Opus 4.5 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (GPQA), while Phi 4 is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Phi 4 costs less

For input processing, Claude Opus 4.5 ($5.00/1M tokens) is 71.4x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.07/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude Opus 4.5 ($25.00/1M tokens) is 178.6x more expensive than Phi 4 ($0.14/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude Opus 4.5 is more expensive than Phi 4.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5
Input tokens$5.00
Output tokens$25.00
Best providerAnthropic
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input tokens$0.07
Output tokens$0.14
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude Opus 4.5 accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Phi 4's 16,000 tokens. Claude Opus 4.5 can generate longer responses up to 64,000 tokens, while Phi 4 is limited to 16,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5
Input200,000 tokens
Output64,000 tokens
Microsoft
Phi 4
Input16,000 tokens
Output16,000 tokens
Sat Jun 06 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Claude Opus 4.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi 4 does not.

Claude Opus 4.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude Opus 4.5

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi 4

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude Opus 4.5 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.

Claude Opus 4.5

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi 4

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude Opus 4.5 was released on 2025-11-24, while Phi 4 was released on 2024-12-12.

Claude Opus 4.5 is 12 months newer than Phi 4.

Claude Opus 4.5

Nov 24, 2025

6 months ago

11mo newer
Phi 4

Dec 12, 2024

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Claude Opus 4.5 has a knowledge cutoff of 2025-03-31, while Phi 4 has a cutoff of 2024-06-01.

Claude Opus 4.5 has more recent training data (up to 2025-03-31), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Phi 4 (2024-06-01).

Claude Opus 4.5

Mar 2025

9 mo newer
Phi 4

Jun 2024

Provider Availability

Claude Opus 4.5 is available from Anthropic. Phi 4 is available from DeepInfra.

Claude Opus 4.5

anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $5.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $25.00/1M

Phi 4

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.07/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.14/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Supports multimodal inputs
Higher GPQA score (87.0% vs 56.1%)
Microsoft
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude Opus 4.5
Microsoft
Phi 4

FAQ

Common questions about Claude Opus 4.5 vs Phi 4.

Which is better, Claude Opus 4.5 or Phi 4?

Claude Opus 4.5 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Claude Opus 4.5 is made by Anthropic and Phi 4 is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Claude Opus 4.5 compare to Phi 4 in benchmarks?

Claude Opus 4.5 scores Tau2 Telecom: 98.2%, MMMLU: 90.8%, Tau2 Retail: 88.9%, GPQA: 87.0%, SWE-Bench Verified: 80.9%. Phi 4 scores MMLU: 84.8%, HumanEval+: 82.8%, HumanEval: 82.6%, MGSM: 80.6%, MATH: 80.4%.

Is Claude Opus 4.5 cheaper than Phi 4?

Phi 4 is 71.4x cheaper for input tokens. Claude Opus 4.5 costs $5.00/M input and $25.00/M output via anthropic. Phi 4 costs $0.07/M input and $0.14/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude Opus 4.5 and Phi 4?

Claude Opus 4.5 supports 200K tokens and Phi 4 supports 16K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude Opus 4.5 and Phi 4?

Key differences include context window (200K vs 16K), input pricing ($5.00 vs $0.07/M), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude Opus 4.5 and Phi 4?

Claude Opus 4.5 is developed by Anthropic and Phi 4 is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons