Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 4.6 vs Phi-4

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 4.6 Anthropic

58.2

Rank #20 Confirmed

Phi-4 Microsoft

31.2

Rank #279 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Phi-4 in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Claude Opus 4.6 leads 63.0 to 20.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 94.4% for Claude Opus 4.6 and 13.8% for Phi-4.
  • Phi-4 is cheaper at $0.07 / $0.14 per million input/output tokens, against $5 / $25 for Claude Opus 4.6.
  • Claude Opus 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
  • Phi-4 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 4.6Phi-4
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index58.231.2
Released2026-02-042024-12-11
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M128K
Max output128K4K
Input $ / M tokens$5$0.07
Output $ / M tokens$25$0.14
Results tracked6837

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.2 (#20), Phi-4: 34.4 (#239)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Coding15361231
SWE-bench Verified78.7%—
FrontierCode26.6%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)75.6%—
LMArena WebDev1547—
SWE-bench Multilingual72%—
GSO41.2%—
WeirdML78%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—45.5%
LiveBench Coding—30.7%
BigCodeBench Complete—55.4%
ALE-Bench996.5—
AlgoTune1.47—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 51.1 (#4), Phi-4: 22.8 (#128)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
Terminal-Bench79.8%—
APEX-Agents46.3%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—28.8%
Remote Labor Index4.2%—
τ²-bench Banking27.3%—
Cybench93%—
DeepResearch Bench55.3%—
BALROG—11.6%
GBAEval44.1%—
LMArena Search1253—
METR Time Horizons78.9%—
Vending-Bench 28,018—

Reasoning Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.8 (#23), Phi-4: 17.7 (#291)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
Chess Puzzles17%1%
LMArena Hard Prompts15271220
Epoch Capabilities Index155.24130.42
ARC-AGI-269.2%—
SimpleBench67.6%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark83.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)92.1%—
ARC-AGI-194%—
EnigmaEval7.6%—
Thematic Generalization80.6%—
EBR-Bench12.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning—47.8%
Mystery Game Puzzles25%—
DTBench91.2%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—45.2%
LMCA55.8%—
ForecastBench60—
LiveBench—41.6%

Math Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 63.0 (#31), Phi-4: 20.8 (#285)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.4%13.8%
LMArena Math15191246
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)66%—
FrontierMath Tier 426.8%—
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions78.5%—
ProofBench50%—
LiveBench Math—42%
MATH Level 5—64.9%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)40.7%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)22.9%—

Knowledge Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 61.9 (#26), Phi-4: 32.6 (#209)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
GPQA Diamond90.5%56.1%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.2%3.7%
LMArena Expert15461203
Humanity's Last Exam34.4%—
SimpleQA Verified47%—
Confabulations—29.4%
MMLU—84.8%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 4.6: 37.3 (#74), Phi-4: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Vision1316—
Furniture Assembly28.3%—
LMArena Document1507—

Multilingual Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 57.9 (#6), Phi-4: 37.2 (#237)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Non-English14891197
LMArena Chinese15511212
LMArena French15131224
LMArena German15021222
LMArena Japanese14841158
LMArena Korean14641151
LMArena Russian14971209
LMArena Spanish15101234

Instruction Following Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 79.5 (#4), Phi-4: 60.4 (#251)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Instruction Following15231201
LiveBench Instruction Following—58.4%

Long Context Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 48.1 (#13), Phi-4: 36.9 (#226)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Longer Query15201217
CL-bench20.7%—
CL-bench Life17%—

Writing & Preference Claude Opus 4.6 leads

Claude Opus 4.6: 73.5 (#10), Phi-4: 40.5 (#244)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 4.6Phi-4
LMArena Text15031217
LMArena Creative Writing15051182
LMArena Multi-Turn15131206
Short-Story Creative Writing—62.6%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1809—
EQ-Bench 41223—
LiveBench Language—25.6%

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Phi-4?

Claude Opus 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.2 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index. Phi-4 costs 114× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Opus 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Opus 4.6 or Phi-4?

Phi-4 is cheaper. It lists at $0.07 per million input tokens and $0.14 per million output tokens; Claude Opus 4.6 lists at $5 and $25.

Is Claude Opus 4.6 or Phi-4 better for coding?

Claude Opus 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 57.2 versus 34.4 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Opus 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 4.6 and Phi-4 share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 4.6 has 68 scored results on Noometry and Phi-4 has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper