Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.8 vs Phi-3.5-MoE

Claude Opus 4.8 has enough public results to be ranked (#13); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.8 Anthropic

60.7

Rank #13 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 4.8 and Phi-3.5-MoE specifications
Claude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index60.7—
Released2026-05-282024-08-17
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$5—
Output $ / M tokens$25—
Results tracked653

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 59.9 (#12), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
DeepSWE59%—
FrontierCode46.5%—
LMArena WebDev1556—
SciCode53.5%—
GSO47.1%—
WeirdML82.9%—
LMArena Coding1490—
ALE-Bench1,564—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 47.6 (#11), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
APEX-Agents48.9%—
OSWorld 2.020.6%—
Remote Labor Index8.3%—
τ²-bench Banking39.7%—
DeepResearch Bench50.2%—
PostTrainBench33.8%—
GBAEval70.9%—
GDP.pdf24%—
LMArena Search1204—
Vending-Bench 25,787—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 64.7 (#16), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
ARC-AGI-272.1%—
SimpleBench64.8%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark88.8%—
NYT Connections (extended)91.1%—
ARC-AGI-192.5%—
CritPt20.9%—
Chess Puzzles34%—
EnigmaEval23.5%—
EBR-Bench28.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1482—
Mystery Game Puzzles36%—
DTBench94.9%—
LMCA57.5%—
Surface Evolver Bench87.5%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index158.21—
ForecastBench59.9—
PIQA—88.6%

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 78.4 (#13), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 61.3 (#29), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
GPQA Diamond91%—
SimpleQA Verified53%—
LMArena Expert1502—
BoolQ—84.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 42.9 (#26), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Vision1294—
Blueprint-Bench 214.5%—
Furniture Assembly42.5%—
LMArena Document1475—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 55.2 (#33), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Non-English1450—
LMArena Chinese1507—
LMArena French1481—
LMArena German1472—
LMArena Japanese1440—
LMArena Korean1432—
LMArena Russian1474—
LMArena Spanish1466—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 77.4 (#24), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Instruction Following1476—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 45.4 (#35), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Longer Query1483—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.8: 72.0 (#16), Phi-3.5-MoE: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.8Phi-3.5-MoE
LMArena Text1461—
LMArena Creative Writing1454—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1840—
EQ-Bench 41281—
LMArena Multi-Turn1476—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.8 better than Phi-3.5-MoE?

Claude Opus 4.8 has enough public results to be ranked (#13); Phi-3.5-MoE does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.8 and Phi-3.5-MoE share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.8 has 65 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-MoE has 3.

Related comparisons

Go deeper