The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 16.7 to -3.7. Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is 1.8x cheaper per token.

Google · Microsoft · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the overall LLM Stats Score 16.7 to -3.7, ranking #208 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Gemini 2.0 Flash wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Gemini 2.0 Flash also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 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 Gemini 2.0 Flash

  • overall performance matters — it scores 16.7 and ranks #208 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Dec 2024

Choose Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
Google
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Microsoft
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
16.7
#208
-3.7
#333
Reasoning
16.1
#207
-4.6
#330
Coding
1.8
#220
-6.8
#252
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$0.10 / M
$0.10 / M
Output price
$0.40 / M
$0.10 / M
Context window
1,048,576
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

2 shared
Index
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Math
23.6#122
-1.1#294
Long context
11.3#64
8.3#81
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

13 reported for Gemini 2.0 Flash · 31 for Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

3 shared

Gemini 2.0 Flash outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU-Pro), while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Gemini 2.0 Flash significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct costs less

For input processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.10/1M tokens) costs the same as Phi-3.5-mini-instruct ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Gemini 2.0 Flash ($0.40/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than Phi-3.5-mini-instruct ($0.10/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Gemini 2.0 Flash is more expensive than Phi-3.5-mini-instruct.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.40
Best providerGoogle
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.10
Best providerAzure
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Gemini 2.0 Flash accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Phi-3.5-mini-instruct's 128,000 tokens. Phi-3.5-mini-instruct can generate longer responses up to 128,000 tokens, while Gemini 2.0 Flash is limited to 8,192 tokens.

Google
Gemini 2.0 Flash
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output8,192 tokens
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Sep 03 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports multimodal inputs, whereas Phi-3.5-mini-instruct does not.

Gemini 2.0 Flash can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemini 2.0 Flash is licensed under a proprietary license, while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct uses MIT.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Proprietary

Closed source

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemini 2.0 Flash was released on 2024-12-01, while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Gemini 2.0 Flash is 3 months newer than Phi-3.5-mini-instruct.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Dec 1, 2024

1.8 years ago

3mo newer
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

2.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Gemini 2.0 Flash has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2024-08-01, while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Gemini 2.0 Flash's training data extends to 2024-08-01, but cannot make a direct comparison without Phi-3.5-mini-instruct's cutoff date.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

Aug 2024

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

—

Provider Availability

Gemini 2.0 Flash is available from Google. Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is available from Azure.

Gemini 2.0 Flash

google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

azure logo
Azure
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.10/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Gemini 2.0 Flash and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Gemini 2.0 Flash
✓ Preferred
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Gemini 2.0 Flash vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct.

Which is better, Gemini 2.0 Flash or Phi-3.5-mini-instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash leads the LLM Stats Score 16.7 to -3.7. Gemini 2.0 Flash is made by Google and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Gemini 2.0 Flash compare to Phi-3.5-mini-instruct in benchmarks?

Gemini 2.0 Flash scores Natural2Code: 92.9%, MATH: 89.7%, FACTS Grounding: 83.6%, MMLU-Pro: 76.4%, EgoSchema: 71.5%. Phi-3.5-mini-instruct scores GSM8k: 86.2%, ARC-C: 84.6%, RULER: 84.1%, PIQA: 81.0%, OpenBookQA: 79.2%.

Is Gemini 2.0 Flash cheaper than Phi-3.5-mini-instruct?

Both models cost $0.10 per million input tokens.

What are the context window sizes for Gemini 2.0 Flash and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash supports 1.0M tokens and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Gemini 2.0 Flash and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (16.7 vs -3.7), context window (1.0M vs 128K), multimodal support (yes vs no), licensing (Proprietary vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Gemini 2.0 Flash and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct?

Gemini 2.0 Flash is developed by Google and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is developed by Microsoft.

Related comparisons