Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Qwen3.8 27B
Qwen3.8 27B comes out ahead, 66 to 46 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 3.5
46/100- ECI127.0
- Price$0.80 / $4.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 27B
66/100- ECI151.8
- Price$0.40 / $2.55
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 27B is our pick
Qwen3.8 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.8 27BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 · Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.938 · Claude Haiku 3.5 $1.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B 262,144 · Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsClaude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.8 27BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Claude Haiku 3.5 | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 48 | 79 |
| Price | 25% | 38 | 49 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 32 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 46/100 | 66/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic | Qwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 127.0 | 151.8 (best) |
| ECI rank | #147 of 165 | #54 of 165 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 38.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 4.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.80 | $0.40 (best) |
| Output | $4.00 | $2.55 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.60 | $0.938 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 3 providers | Median of 49 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 8,192 tokens | 32,768 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | No | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | No | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 4 | 53 (best) |
| Released | Oct 22, 2024 | Aug 14, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jul 31, 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$16.00
- Qwen3.8 27B$9.10
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Haiku 3.5 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is the better all-round choice, scoring 66/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 3.5 or Qwen3.8 27B?
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.55 output per million tokens (median across 49 API providers). Claude Haiku 3.5 costs $0.80 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.938 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $1.60 for Claude Haiku 3.5 (1.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 27B 151.8 (#54 of 165) and Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 (#147 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (149.9–153.6 vs 121.4–129.2), so the gap is a real one.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 3.5 and Qwen3.8 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.8 27B 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?
Qwen3.8 27B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 3.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.8 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 2026. Claude Haiku 3.5 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 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 Nov 2, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Mistral Large 2.1Three-way comparison
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Mistral Large 2.1Mistral AI · ECI 128.6
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Llama-3.3-70B-InstructMeta · ECI 127.3
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs GPT-4oOpenAI · ECI 129.0
- Claude Haiku 3.5 vs Gemma 2 27BGoogle · ECI 122.1
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Inkling SmallThinking Machines · ECI 150.5
- Qwen3.8 27B vs Mistral Large 4Mistral AI · ECI 150.6
