Apertus 70B vs Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 comes out ahead, 48 to 33 on our weighted score, though Apertus 70B is 39% cheaper per token.
Swiss AI
Apertus 70B
33/100- ECI—
- Price$0.82 / $2.42
- Context66K
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
48/100- ECI142.4
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is our pick
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceApertus 70BApertus 70B $1.22 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Apertus 70B 65,536 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Apertus 70B: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingApertus 70BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Apertus 70B | Claude Haiku 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 46 | 36 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 25 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 12 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 33/100 | 48/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Apertus 70BSwiss AI | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 142.4 |
| ECI rank | — | #90 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | — | 71.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | — | 66.7% |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 13.2% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.82 (best) | $1.00 |
| Output | $2.42 (best) | $5.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.10 |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22 (best) | $2.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Official Anthropic API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 65,536 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 64,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | No | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenApache-2.0 | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | claude-haiku-4-5 |
| API providers | 3 | 34 (best) |
| Released | Sep 2, 2025 | Oct 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Sep 2025 | Feb 28, 2025 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Apertus 70B$13.04
- Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Apertus 70B or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 48/100 against Apertus 70B (33). It leads on inputs & features and context window. Apertus 70B wins on price. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Apertus 70B or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Apertus 70B is cheaper at $0.82 input / $2.42 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1.00 input / $5.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $1.22 per million tokens for Apertus 70B versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Apertus 70B has not been scored yet and Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.4.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Apertus 70B and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 65,536 for Apertus 70B. Maximum output per response: Apertus 70B up to 8,192, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Apertus 70B accepts text; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Apertus 70B publishes its weights (Apache-2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the newest, released Oct 15, 2025. Apertus 70B came out Sep 2, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Apertus 70B Sep 2025, Claude Haiku 4.5 Feb 28, 2025.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingThree-way comparison
- Apertus 70B vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)
- Apertus 70B vs GLM-4.6Z.ai (Zhipu)
- Apertus 70B vs Ling-1TinclusionAI
- Apertus 70B vs Mistral Medium 3.1Mistral AI
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3 MaxAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 142.4
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.5
