Model Comparison

Gemma 2 9B vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

11 benchmarks

Gemma 2 9B outperforms in 5 benchmarks (BoolQ, HellaSwag, MMLU, PIQA, Winogrande), while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is better at 6 benchmarks (ARC-C, GSM8k, HumanEval, MATH, MBPP, Social IQa).

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance.

Thu Apr 16 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
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com
Google
Gemma 2 9B
Input tokens$0.00
Output tokens$0.00
Best providerUnknown Organization
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$0.10
Best providerAzure
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

5.4B diff

Gemma 2 9B has 5.4B more parameters than Phi-3.5-mini-instruct, making it 143.2% larger.

Google
Gemma 2 9B
9.2Bparameters
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
3.8Bparameters
9.2B
Gemma 2 9B
3.8B
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Only Phi-3.5-mini-instruct specifies input context (128,000 tokens). Only Phi-3.5-mini-instruct specifies output context (128,000 tokens).

Google
Gemma 2 9B
Input- tokens
Output- tokens
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Thu Apr 16 2026 • llm-stats.com

License

Usage and distribution terms

Gemma 2 9B is licensed under Gemma, while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct uses MIT.

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

Gemma 2 9B

Gemma

Open weights

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

MIT

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Gemma 2 9B was released on 2024-06-27, while Phi-3.5-mini-instruct was released on 2024-08-23.

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is 2 months newer than Gemma 2 9B.

Gemma 2 9B

Jun 27, 2024

1.8 years ago

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Aug 23, 2024

1.6 years ago

1mo 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

Google
Higher BoolQ score (84.2% vs 78.0%)
Higher HellaSwag score (81.9% vs 69.4%)
Higher MMLU score (71.3% vs 69.0%)
Higher PIQA score (81.7% vs 81.0%)
Higher Winogrande score (80.6% vs 68.5%)
Microsoft
Larger context window (128,000 tokens)
Higher ARC-C score (84.6% vs 68.4%)
Higher GSM8k score (86.2% vs 68.6%)
Higher HumanEval score (62.8% vs 40.2%)
Higher MATH score (48.5% vs 36.6%)
Higher MBPP score (69.6% vs 52.4%)
Higher Social IQa score (74.7% vs 53.4%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Google
Gemma 2 9B
Microsoft
Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Gemma 2 9B vs Phi-3.5-mini-instruct

Phi-3.5-mini-instruct has a slight edge in benchmark performance. Gemma 2 9B is made by Google and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is made by Microsoft. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Gemma 2 9B scores ARC-E: 88.0%, BoolQ: 84.2%, HellaSwag: 81.9%, PIQA: 81.7%, Winogrande: 80.6%. Phi-3.5-mini-instruct scores GSM8k: 86.2%, ARC-C: 84.6%, RULER: 84.1%, PIQA: 81.0%, OpenBookQA: 79.2%.
Gemma 2 9B supports an unknown number of 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.
Key differences include licensing (Gemma vs MIT). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Gemma 2 9B is developed by Google and Phi-3.5-mini-instruct is developed by Microsoft.