Model comparison

Grok 4.5 vs Phi-1.5

Grok 4.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Grok 4.5 xAI

55.0

Rank #25 Confirmed

Phi-1.5 Microsoft

—

Unranked

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both.
  • Phi-1.5 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Grok 4.5 and Phi-1.5 specifications
Grok 4.5Phi-1.5
ProviderxAIMicrosoft
Noometry Index55.0—
Released2026-07-082023-09-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window500K—
Max output500K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$6—
Results tracked527

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 52.2 (#35), Phi-1.5: —

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.4%—
LMArena WebDev1553—
SciCode54.1%—
WeirdML46.4%—
LMArena Coding1474—
ALE-Bench1,309—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 44.4 (#17), Phi-1.5: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
APEX-Agents56.2%—
τ²-bench Banking47.9%—
PostTrainBench23.4%—
GBAEval65.4%—
GDP.pdf14%—
LMArena Search1213—
Vending-Bench 23,887—

Reasoning Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 56.1 (#25), Phi-1.5: —

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
Epoch Capabilities Index153.9291.53
ARC-AGI-252.6%—
SimpleBench70%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.5%—
NYT Connections (extended)79.9%—
ARC-AGI-187.2%—
CritPt15.4%—
Chess Puzzles36%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1462—
DTBench96.5%—
LMCA45.2%—
Surface Evolver Bench74.4%—
HellaSwag—47.6%
WinoGrande—73.4%

Math Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 60.9 (#35), Phi-1.5: —

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)57.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 424.4%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202597.8%—
ProofBench31%—
LMArena Math1459—

Knowledge Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 62.3 (#24), Phi-1.5: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
GPQA Diamond93.4%—
SimpleQA Verified48.3%—
LMArena Expert1466—
ARC (AI2) Challenge—44.4%
BoolQ—75.8%
MMLU—37.6%
OpenBookQA—37.2%

Multimodal Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 37.6 (#72), Phi-1.5: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
LMArena Vision1288—
Blueprint-Bench 227.3%—
Furniture Assembly22.5%—
LMArena Document1452—

Multilingual Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 54.4 (#42), Phi-1.5: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
LMArena Non-English1440—
LMArena Chinese1496—
LMArena French1456—
LMArena German1446—
LMArena Japanese1428—
LMArena Korean1404—
LMArena Russian1448—
LMArena Spanish1450—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 76.0 (#48), Phi-1.5: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
LMArena Instruction Following1446—

Long Context Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 44.8 (#56), Phi-1.5: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
LMArena Longer Query1463—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Grok 4.5: 65.8 (#42), Phi-1.5: —

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkGrok 4.5Phi-1.5
LMArena Text1448—
LMArena Creative Writing1442—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1579—
LMArena Multi-Turn1456—

Frequently asked questions

Is Grok 4.5 better than Phi-1.5?

Grok 4.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#25); Phi-1.5 does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

How many benchmarks do Grok 4.5 and Phi-1.5 share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Grok 4.5 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Phi-1.5 has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper