Claude Haiku 4.5 vs MiniMax-M2 vs Qwen3-VL Plus
Qwen3-VL Plus comes out ahead, 56 to 48 and 48 on our weighted score.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5
48/100- ECI142.4
- Price$1.00 / $5.00
- Context200K
MiniMaxMiniMax-M2
48/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $1.20
- Context205K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3-VL Plus
56/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.60
- Context262K
Qwen3-VL Plus is our pick
Qwen3-VL Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against MiniMax-M2 (48) and Claude Haiku 4.5 (48). It leads on context window. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins on inputs & features. 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 priceMiniMax-M2MiniMax-M2 $0.525 · Qwen3-VL Plus $0.55 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3-VL PlusQwen3-VL Plus 262,144 · MiniMax-M2 204,800 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · MiniMax-M2: Text · Qwen3-VL Plus: Text, Images
- Self-hostingMiniMax-M2Publishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Claude Haiku 4.5 | MiniMax-M2 | Qwen3-VL Plus |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 36 | 63 | 62 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 35 | 60 |
| Context window | 20% | 32 | 32 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 48/100 | 48/100 | 56/100 |
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 | MiniMax-M2MiniMax | Qwen3-VL PlusAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 142.4 | — | — |
| ECI rank | #90 of 148 | — | — |
| 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 | $0.30 | $0.20 (best) |
| Output | $5.00 | $1.20 (best) | $1.60 |
| Cached input | $0.10 | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.00 | $0.525 (best) | $0.55 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Anthropic API | Official MiniMax (minimax.io) API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 200,000 tokens | 204,800 tokens | 262,144 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 64,000 tokens | 131,072 tokens (best) | 32,768 tokens |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | No | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | No |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | claude-haiku-4-5 | MiniMax-M2 | qwen3-vl-plus |
| API providers | 34 (best) | 13 | 6 |
| Released | Oct 15, 2025 | Oct 27, 2025 | Sep 23, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Feb 28, 2025 | — | Apr 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
- MiniMax-M2$5.40
- Qwen3-VL Plus$5.20
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Haiku 4.5, MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3-VL Plus?
Qwen3-VL Plus is the better all-round choice, scoring 56/100 against MiniMax-M2 (48) and Claude Haiku 4.5 (48). It leads on context window. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins on inputs & features. 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, MiniMax-M2 or Qwen3-VL Plus?
MiniMax-M2 is cheaper at $0.30 input / $1.20 output per million tokens (official MiniMax (minimax.io) API price). Qwen3-VL Plus costs $0.20 input / $1.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price); 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 $0.525 per million tokens for MiniMax-M2 versus $0.55 for Qwen3-VL Plus (1× as much) and $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (3.8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers all three models yet. Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.4, MiniMax-M2 has not been scored yet and Qwen3-VL Plus has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 4.5, MiniMax-M2 and Qwen3-VL Plus yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3-VL Plus has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 204,800 for MiniMax-M2 and 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, MiniMax-M2 up to 131,072, Qwen3-VL Plus up to 32,768 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; MiniMax-M2 accepts text; Qwen3-VL Plus accepts text and images. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
MiniMax-M2 publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3-VL Plus is proprietary.
Which is newer?
MiniMax-M2 is the newest, released Oct 27, 2025. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025; Qwen3-VL Plus came out Sep 23, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 4.5 Feb 28, 2025, Qwen3-VL Plus Apr 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.
