Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.7 vs Phi-3.5-MoE

Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#19); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.7 Anthropic

58.3

Rank #19 Confirmed

Phi-3.5-MoE Microsoft

—

Unranked

Summary

  • Phi-3.5-MoE has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.7 and Phi-3.5-MoE specifications
Claude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index58.3—
Released2026-04-142024-08-17
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$5—
Output $ / M tokens$25—
Results tracked663

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 59.6 (#13), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
SWE-bench Verified83.5%—
FrontierCode38.5%—
LMArena WebDev1558—
SciCode54.5%—
GSO44.1%—
WeirdML76.4%—
LMArena Coding1518—
MirrorCode31.1%—
ALE-Bench1,323—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 47.9 (#10), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
Terminal-Bench80.2%—
APEX-Agents49.2%—
OSWorld 2.018.2%—
τ²-bench Banking40.2%—
PostTrainBench28.6%—
ExploitBench26.5%—
GBAEval43.8%—
GDP.pdf21%—
LMArena Search1233—
Vending-Bench 210,937—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 53.8 (#29), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
ARC-AGI-275.8%—
SimpleBench61.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark80.7%—
NYT Connections (extended)39%—
ARC-AGI-193.5%—
CritPt12%—
Chess Puzzles30%—
Thematic Generalization72.8%—
EBR-Bench19%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1506—
Mystery Game Puzzles28%—
DTBench94.7%—
LMCA52.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.25—
ForecastBench60.3—
PIQA—88.6%

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 66.7 (#26), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 62.6 (#23), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
GPQA Diamond90.2%—
Humanity's Last Exam36.2%—
SimpleQA Verified51.7%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
LMArena Expert1521—
BoolQ—84.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 41.2 (#38), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Vision1316—
Blueprint-Bench 224.5%—
Furniture Assembly33.3%—
LMArena Document1495—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 57.3 (#10), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Non-English1480—
LMArena Chinese1531—
LMArena French1503—
LMArena German1495—
LMArena Japanese1472—
LMArena Korean1464—
LMArena Russian1494—
LMArena Spanish1495—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 78.4 (#10), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Instruction Following1498—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 46.2 (#25), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Longer Query1505—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.7: 75.1 (#8), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.7Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Text1490—
LMArena Creative Writing1486—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1914—
EQ-Bench 41311—
LMArena Multi-Turn1505—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.7 better than Phi-3.5-MoE?

Claude Opus 4.7 has enough public results to be ranked (#19); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.7 and Phi-3.5-MoE share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.7 has 66 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-MoE has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper