+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
VS
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct vs Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Comprehensive side-by-side LLM comparison
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct leads with 1.8% higher average benchmark score. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct supports multimodal inputs. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is available on 6 providers. Both models have their strengths depending on your specific coding needs.
+
+
+
+
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B was introduced as a mid-sized variant in the Llama 3.2 family, designed to offer enhanced capabilities while maintaining efficiency. Built to provide a balanced option for applications requiring more than lightweight models but less than flagship sizes, it serves diverse use cases in the open-source community.
+
+
+
+
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.
1 month newer
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Microsoft
2024-08-23
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Meta
2024-09-25
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Performance Metrics
Context window and performance specifications
Average performance across 4 common benchmarks
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Average Score:56.6%
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Average Score:58.5%(+1.8%)
+
+
+
+
Knowledge Cutoff
Training data recency comparison
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
2023-12-31
More recent knowledge cutoff means awareness of newer technologies and frameworks
Provider Availability & Performance
Available providers and their performance metrics
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
6 providers
Bedrock
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
DeepInfra
Throughput: 108 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Fireworks
Throughput: 125 tok/s
Latency: 0.2ms
Groq
Throughput: 100 tok/s
Latency: 0.5ms
Sambanova
+
+
+
+
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Avg Score:56.6%
Providers:6
+
+
+
+
Phi-3.5-MoE-instruct
Avg Score:58.5%(+1.8%)
Providers:0