Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Opus 5.5 vs Phi-3.5-mini

Claude Opus 5.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#3); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Claude Opus 5.5 Anthropic

68.6

Rank #3 Confirmed

Phi-3.5-mini Microsoft

36.9

Unranked Sparse

Summary

  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Opus 5.5 leads 71.9 to 34.6.
  • Phi-3.5-mini has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
ProviderAnthropicMicrosoft
Noometry Index68.636.9
Released2026-09-222024-08-16
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$4—
Output $ / M tokens$20—
Results tracked445

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Opus 5.5 leads

Claude Opus 5.5: 71.9 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: 34.6 (#232)

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
FrontierCode54.6%—
CursorBench57.8%—
LMArena WebDev1813—
FrontierSWE62.3%—
SciCode66.9%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—32.8%
LMArena Coding1547—
MirrorCode77.4%—
BigCodeBench Complete—38.5%
ALE-Bench2,147—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 45.3 (#15), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
APEX-Agents73.5%—
GDP.pdf30.6%—
Vending-Bench 29,235—

Reasoning Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.2 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
ARC-AGI-293.3%—
NYT Connections (extended)88.5%—
ARC-AGI-198.5%—
CritPt31.7%—
EBR-Bench71.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1535—
Mystery Game Puzzles71%—
DTBench98.9%—
LMCA68.2%—
Epoch Capabilities Index167.33—
PIQA—81%

Math Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 91.8 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)91.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 495%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025100%—
ProofBench100%—
LMArena Math1506—
FrontierMath Erdős2.9%—
GSM8K—86.2%

Knowledge Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 66.4 (#10), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
GPQA Diamond90.6%—
SimpleQA Verified72.2%—
LMArena Expert1547—
BoolQ—78%

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 57.8 (#1), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Vision1321—
Blueprint-Bench 251.2%—
Furniture Assembly83.3%—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 59.1 (#2), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Non-English1507—
LMArena Chinese1588—
LMArena French1514—
LMArena Russian1520—
LMArena Spanish1507—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 80.0 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Instruction Following1537—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 47.1 (#19), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Longer Query1532—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Claude Opus 5.5: 78.2 (#3), Phi-3.5-mini: —

BenchmarkClaude Opus 5.5Phi-3.5-mini
LMArena Text1515—
LMArena Creative Writing1533—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing2050—
LMArena Multi-Turn1499—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Opus 5.5 better than Phi-3.5-mini?

Claude Opus 5.5 has enough public results to be ranked (#3); Phi-3.5-mini does not yet, so treat this comparison as directional.

Is Claude Opus 5.5 or Phi-3.5-mini better for coding?

Claude Opus 5.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 71.9 versus 34.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Opus 5.5 and Phi-3.5-mini share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Opus 5.5 has 44 scored results on Noometry and Phi-3.5-mini has 5.

Related comparisons

Go deeper