Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Qwen Turbo
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen Turbo 31, Claude Haiku 3.5 30). The right pick depends on what you value most.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 3.5
30/100- ECI127.2
- Price—
- Context200K
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen Turbo
31/100- ECI—
- Price$0.05 / $0.20
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen Turbo 31/100, Claude Haiku 3.5 30/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen Turbo for raw capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.
- CapabilityQwen TurboShared benchmarks: Qwen Turbo 24.0% · Claude Haiku 3.5 21.2%
- Lowest priceQwen TurboQwen Turbo $0.087 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend) · Claude Haiku 3.5 unpriced
- Longest contextQwen TurboQwen Turbo 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen Turbo: Text
- Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
| Measure | Weight | Claude Haiku 3.5 | Qwen Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityShared benchmarks | 67% | 21 | 24 |
| Inputs & features | 20% | 60 | 35 |
| Context window | 13% | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 30/100 | 31/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: price. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic | Qwen TurboAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 127.2 | — |
| ECI rank | #134 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 38.1% | 41.8% (best) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 4.3% | 6.1% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | — | $0.05 |
| Output | — | $0.20 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | — | $0.087 |
| Long-context rate | — | Same rate |
| Price source | — | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 16,384 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen-turbo |
| API providers | — | 3 |
| Released | Oct 22, 2024 | Nov 1, 2024 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jul 31, 2024 | Apr 2024 |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Claude Haiku 3.5—
- Qwen Turbo$0.90
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Haiku 3.5 or Qwen Turbo?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen Turbo 31/100, Claude Haiku 3.5 30/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen Turbo for raw capability. The score weighs capability 67%, inputs & features 20%, context window 13%. Capability uses the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025), because Qwen Turbo has no Capabilities Index score yet.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Qwen Turbo?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.20 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). . At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.087 per million tokens for Qwen Turbo versus . Claude Haiku 3.5 has no published per-token price.
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Not every model here has a Capabilities Index score, so we compare the average of shared benchmarks (GPQA Diamond and OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025): Qwen Turbo 24.0% and Claude Haiku 3.5 21.2%. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen Turbo 41.8%, Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen Turbo 6.1%, Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 3.5 and Qwen Turbo yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen Turbo 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?
Qwen Turbo has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 3.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, Qwen Turbo up to 16,384 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen Turbo accepts text. Claude Haiku 3.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
No. Claude Haiku 3.5 and Qwen Turbo are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.
Which is newer?
Qwen Turbo is the newest, released Nov 1, 2024. Claude Haiku 3.5 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024, Qwen Turbo Apr 2024.
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 Llama-3.3-70B-InstructThree-way comparison
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama-3.3-70B-InstructMeta · ECI 127.3
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Mistral Large 2.1Mistral AI · ECI 128.5
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Qwen2.5 32B InstructAlibaba (Qwen) · ECI 128.5
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.6
- Qwen Turbo vs Gemma 3 12B ITGoogle · ECI 123.5
- Qwen Turbo vs GPT-4o miniOpenAI · ECI 126.6
