# Claude 2.1 vs Phi-3.5-mini

> Claude 2.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#340); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-phi-3-5-mini
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 0

## Summary

- The widest gap is in coding, where Phi-3.5-mini leads 34.0 to 25.8.
- Phi-3.5-mini has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Phi-3.5-mini |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 36.4 |
| Rank | 340 | — |
| Context | — | — |
| Input $/M | — | — |
| Output $/M | — | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322)
- Phi-3.5-mini: 34.0 (#231)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Phi-3.5-mini |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 32.8% |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 38.5% |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216)
- Phi-3.5-mini: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Phi-3.5-mini |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
| PIQA | — | 81% |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309)
- Phi-3.5-mini: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Phi-3.5-mini |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| GSM8K | — | 86.2% |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287)
- Phi-3.5-mini: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Phi-3.5-mini |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| BoolQ | — | 78% |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Phi-3.5-mini?

Claude 2.1 has enough public results to be ranked (#340); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Phi-3.5-mini better for coding?

Phi-3.5-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.0 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Phi-3.5-mini share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-mini has 5.