ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 73 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI142.2
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 4.5
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    73/100
    • ECI143.6
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 Flash

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6 · Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsClaude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 4.5Qwen3.5 Flash
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6769
Price25%3482
Inputs & features15%8080
Context window10%3260
Overall100%57/10073/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 Flash specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 4.5AnthropicQwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)142.2143.6 (best)
ECI rank#102 of 165#95 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions71.2%82.3% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—18.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics66.7%84.4% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions13.2%20.3% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$1.00$0.10 (best)
Output$5.00$0.40 (best)
Cached input$0.10$0.01 (best)
Blended (3:1)$2.00$0.175 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window200,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output64,000 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDclaude-haiku-4-5qwen3.5-flash
API providers48 (best)9
ReleasedOct 15, 2025Feb 23, 2026
Knowledge cutoffFeb 28, 2025—
03 — Cost

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
  • Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (11× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6 (#95 of 165) and Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 (#102 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.4–145.0 vs 139.4–143.9), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%, Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%, Claude Haiku 4.5 66.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.5 Flash 20.3%, Claude Haiku 4.5 13.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 Flash 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?

Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

No. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.5 Flash are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. 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.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons