ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

DeepSeek-R1 vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 comes out ahead, 58 to 51 on our weighted score, though DeepSeek-R1 is 41% cheaper per token.

  1. DeepSeek

    DeepSeek-R1

    Released Jan 20, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI139.0
    • Price$0.70 / $2.60
    • Context128K
    Full specs Remove DeepSeek-R1
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI142.4
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 4.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 4.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against DeepSeek-R1 (51). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-R1 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 4.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4 · DeepSeek-R1 139.0
  • Lowest priceDeepSeek-R1DeepSeek-R1 $1.18 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · DeepSeek-R1 128,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5DeepSeek-R1: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingDeepSeek-R1Publishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightDeepSeek-R1Claude Haiku 4.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6469
Price25%4736
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%2432
Overall100%51/10058/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

DeepSeek-R1 vs Claude Haiku 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationDeepSeek-R1DeepSeekClaude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)139.0142.4 (best)
ECI rank#104 of 148#90 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions71.7% (best)71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics53.3%66.7% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—13.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.70 (best)$1.00
Output$2.60 (best)$5.00
Cached input—$0.10
Blended (3:1)$1.18 (best)$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 11 providersOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window128,000 tokens200,000 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens64,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID—claude-haiku-4-5
API providers1234 (best)
ReleasedJan 20, 2025Oct 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJul 2024Feb 28, 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • DeepSeek-R1$12.20
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: DeepSeek-R1 or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against DeepSeek-R1 (51). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. DeepSeek-R1 wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, DeepSeek-R1 or Claude Haiku 4.5?

DeepSeek-R1 is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.60 output per million tokens (median across 11 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 $1.18 per million tokens for DeepSeek-R1 versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (1.7× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 4.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4 (#90 of 148) and DeepSeek-R1 139.0 (#104 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (139.5–144.3 vs 136.2–140.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek-R1 71.7%, Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Haiku 4.5 66.7%, DeepSeek-R1 53.3%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for DeepSeek-R1 and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 4.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. 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 128,000 for DeepSeek-R1. Maximum output per response: DeepSeek-R1 up to 32,768, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

DeepSeek-R1 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?

DeepSeek-R1 publishes its weights 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. DeepSeek-R1 came out Jan 20, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: DeepSeek-R1 Jul 2024, 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons