Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Baichuan M2 32B
Baichuan M2 32B comes out ahead, 58 to 47 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
47/100- ECI142.2
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
- Our pick
BaichuanBaichuan M2 32B
58/100- ECI—
- Price$0.07 / $0.07
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Baichuan M2 32B is our pick
Baichuan M2 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 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 priceBaichuan M2 32BBaichuan M2 32B $0.07 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Baichuan M2 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Baichuan M2 32B: Text
- Self-hostingBaichuan M2 32BPublishes downloadable weights (Apache-2.0)
| Measure | Weight | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Baichuan M2 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 34 | 100 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 10 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 25 |
| Overall | 100% | 47/100 | 58/100 |
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 | Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic | Baichuan M2 32BBaichuan |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | $1.00 | $0.07 (best) |
| Output | $5.00 | $0.07 (best) |
| Cached input | $0.10 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.00 | $0.07 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Anthropic API | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 64,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | No |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Proprietary | OpenApache-2.0 |
| API model ID | claude-haiku-4-5 | — |
| API providers | 48 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Oct 15, 2025 | Aug 13, 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.
- Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
- Baichuan M2 32B$0.84
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Baichuan M2 32B?
Baichuan M2 32B is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 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, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Baichuan M2 32B?
Baichuan M2 32B is cheaper at $0.07 input / $0.07 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). 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 $0.07 per million tokens for Baichuan M2 32B versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (29× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.2 and Baichuan M2 32B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Baichuan M2 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Note that Baichuan M2 32B does not support tool calling, which most coding agents need.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Baichuan M2 32B. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, Baichuan M2 32B up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Baichuan M2 32B accepts text. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Baichuan M2 32B 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. Baichuan M2 32B came out Aug 13, 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 GLM-4.7Three-way comparison
- 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
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen) · ECI 143.8
- Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingMoonshot AI · ECI 145.9
- Baichuan M2 32B vs Qwen3 VL Flash (Alibaba Cloud)Alibaba (Qwen)
- Baichuan M2 32B vs Trinity MiniArcee AI
