GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5
GLM-4.6V-Flash comes out ahead, 63 to 47 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Z.ai (Zhipu)GLM-4.6V-Flash
63/100- ECI—
- Price$0.161 / $0.559
- Context128K
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
47/100- ECI142.2
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
GLM-4.6V-Flash is our pick
GLM-4.6V-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (47). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins on inputs & features and context window. 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 priceGLM-4.6V-FlashGLM-4.6V-Flash $0.261 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · GLM-4.6V-Flash 128,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsGLM-4.6V-Flash: Text, Images, Video · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
- Self-hostingGLM-4.6V-FlashPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | GLM-4.6V-Flash | Claude Haiku 4.5 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 74 | 34 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 24 | 32 |
| Overall | 100% | 63/100 | 47/100 |
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 | GLM-4.6V-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | 142.2 |
| ECI rank | — | #102 of 165 |
| 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 | $0.161 (best) | $1.00 |
| Output | $0.559 (best) | $5.00 |
| Cached input | — | $0.10 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.261 (best) | $2.00 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Official Anthropic API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 200,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 32,768 tokens | 64,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | Yes |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | glm-4.6v-flash | claude-haiku-4-5 |
| API providers | 6 | 48 (best) |
| Released | Dec 8, 2025 | Oct 15, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 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.
- GLM-4.6V-Flash$2.73
- Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: GLM-4.6V-Flash or Claude Haiku 4.5?
GLM-4.6V-Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 63/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (47). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins on inputs & features and context window. 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, GLM-4.6V-Flash or Claude Haiku 4.5?
GLM-4.6V-Flash is cheaper at $0.161 input / $0.559 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers; free on Z.AI). 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 $0.261 per million tokens for GLM-4.6V-Flash versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (7.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. GLM-4.6V-Flash has not been scored yet and Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.2.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GLM-4.6V-Flash 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 128,000 for GLM-4.6V-Flash. Maximum output per response: GLM-4.6V-Flash up to 32,768, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
GLM-4.6V-Flash accepts text, images and video; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
GLM-4.6V-Flash publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
GLM-4.6V-Flash is the newest, released Dec 8, 2025. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Grok 4 Fast Non ReasoningThree-way comparison
- GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Grok 4 Fast Non ReasoningxAI
- GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Jamba MiniAI21 Labs
- GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Solar Pro 3Upstage
- GLM-4.6V-Flash vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GLM-4.7Z.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 143.7
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Mistral Medium 3.5Mistral AI · ECI 141.5
