Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Haiku 3.5 vs DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 79 and 46 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
83/100- ECI160.4
- Price$0.10 / $0.50
- Context1M
- Anthropic
Claude Haiku 3.5
46/100- ECI127.0
- Price$0.80 / $4.00
- Context200K
DeepSeekDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017
79/100- ECI158.8
- Price$0.15 / $0.60
- Context1M
Claude Haiku 5.5 is our pick
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (79) and Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityClaude Haiku 5.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 · Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0
- Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 $0.263 · Claude Haiku 3.5 $1.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextClaude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 tokens
- Widest inputsClaude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs · DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017: Text, Images
- Self-hostingDeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017Publishes downloadable weights (MIT)
| Measure | Weight | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Claude Haiku 3.5 | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 89 | 48 | 87 |
| Price | 25% | 80 | 38 | 74 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 60 | 70 |
| Context window | 10% | 60 | 32 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 83/100 | 46/100 | 79/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic | Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic | DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017DeepSeek |
|---|---|---|---|
| Capability | |||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 160.4 (best) | 127.0 | 158.8 |
| ECI rank | #14 of 165 (best) | #147 of 165 | #19 of 165 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 89.7% | 38.1% | 93.2% (best) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 75.1% (best) | — | 71.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 98.9% | 4.3% | 99.4% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 23.8% | — | 42.5% (best) |
| Price per million tokens | |||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.80 | $0.15 |
| Output | $0.50 (best) | $4.00 | $0.60 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | — | $0.003 (best) |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.20 (best) | $1.60 | $0.263 |
| Long-context rate | Over 100K: $0.50 / $2.50 | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Anthropic API | Median of 3 providers | Official DeepSeek API |
| Limits | |||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 200,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 128,000 tokens | 8,192 tokens | 384,000 tokens (best) |
| Inputs and features | |||
| Text | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | Yes | Yes | No |
| Audio | No | No | No |
| Video | No | No | No |
| Reasoning | Yeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max | No | Yeslow · high · max |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No | Yes |
| Availability | |||
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary | OpenMIT |
| API model ID | claude-haiku-5-5 | — | deepseek-flash |
| API providers | 33 | 4 | 40 (best) |
| Released | Oct 7, 2026 | Oct 22, 2024 | Oct 17, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | Jun 2026 | Jul 31, 2024 | May 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 5.5$2.00
- Claude Haiku 3.5$16.00
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017$2.70
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Claude Haiku 5.5, Claude Haiku 3.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (79) and Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on capability, price and inputs & features. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5, Claude Haiku 3.5 or DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 costs $0.15 input / $0.60 output per million tokens (official DeepSeek API price); 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 $0.20 per million tokens for Claude Haiku 5.5 versus $0.263 for DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 (1.3× as much) and $1.60 for Claude Haiku 3.5 (8× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Claude Haiku 5.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 5.5 160.4 (#14 of 165), DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 158.8 (#19 of 165) and Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 (#147 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (157.3–163.8 vs 156.7–162.2), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 93.2%, Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%, Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 99.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 5.5, Claude Haiku 3.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 5.5 leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Haiku 5.5 and DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 have the largest context windows (1,000,000 and 1,000,000 tokens), against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 3.5. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000, Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 up to 384,000 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 accepts text and images. Claude Haiku 5.5 handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 publishes its weights (MIT) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 5.5 and Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.
Which is newer?
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 is the newest, released Oct 17, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 came out Oct 7, 2026; Claude Haiku 3.5 came out Oct 22, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 5.5 Jun 2026, Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024, DeepSeek V4.1 Flash 1017 May 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
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 LunaOpenAI · ECI 156.8
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GLM-5.3-FlashZ.ai (Zhipu) · ECI 153.2
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemini 3.7 FlashGoogle · ECI 158.2
- 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
