+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Claude Sonnet 4 vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Claude Sonnet 4 leads with 27.6% higher average benchmark score. Claude Sonnet 4 supports multimodal inputs. Claude Sonnet 4 is available on 4 providers. Overall, Claude Sonnet 4 is the stronger choice for coding tasks.
+
+
+
+
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4 was created as the balanced offering in the Claude 4 family, designed to provide strong intelligence with practical speed and cost efficiency. Built to serve as a versatile workhorse for diverse applications, it balances advanced capabilities with operational considerations for everyday enterprise and consumer use.
+
+
+
+
Microsoft
Phi-3.5 MoE was created using a mixture-of-experts architecture, designed to provide enhanced capabilities while maintaining efficiency through sparse activation. Built to combine the benefits of larger models with practical computational requirements, it represents Microsoft's exploration of efficient scaling techniques.
9 months newer
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Microsoft
2024-08-23
Claude Sonnet 4
Anthropic
2025-05-22
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 2 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Claude Sonnet 4
Average Score:81.0%(+27.6%)
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Average Score:53.3%
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Claude Sonnet 4
4 providers
Anthropic
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
Bedrock
Throughput: 101 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
ZeroEval
Throughput: 42 tok/s
Latency: 0.4ms
+
+
+
+
Claude Sonnet 4
Avg Score:81.0%(+27.6%)
Providers:4
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Avg Score:53.3%
Providers:0