ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

Claude Haiku 5.5 comes out ahead, 83 to 55 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 5.5

    Released Oct 7, 2026New

    83/100
    • ECI160.4
    • Price$0.10 / $0.50
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 5.5

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

    Released Jul 25, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI143.8
    • Price$0.30 / $2.90
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 5.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. 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 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8
  • Lowest priceClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 $0.20 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 $0.95 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5 1,000,000 · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs · Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text
  • Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%8969
Price25%8049
Inputs & features15%8035
Context window10%6037
Overall100%83/10055/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 specifications side by side
SpecificationClaude Haiku 5.5AnthropicQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)160.4 (best)143.8
ECI rank#14 of 165 (best)#93 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions89.7% (best)80.1%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics75.1%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics98.9% (best)86.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions23.8%40.4% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$0.30
Output$0.50 (best)$2.90
Cached input$0.01—
Blended (3:1)$0.20 (best)$0.95
Long-context rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50Same rate
Price sourceOfficial Anthropic APIMedian of 11 providers
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)262,144 tokens
Max output128,000 tokens (best)81,920 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesNo
PDFsYesNo
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · maxYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesNo
Availability
WeightsProprietaryOpenApache 2.0
API model IDclaude-haiku-5-5—
API providers33 (best)12
ReleasedOct 7, 2026Jul 25, 2025
Knowledge cutoffJun 2026—
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 5.5$2.00
  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Claude Haiku 5.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 83/100 against Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (55). 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 5.5 or Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.30 input / $2.90 output per million tokens (median across 11 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 $0.95 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 (4.7× 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) and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 143.8 (#93 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (157.3–163.8 vs 141.9–145.2), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Haiku 5.5 89.7%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 80.1%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Haiku 5.5 98.9%, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 86.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 40.4%, Claude Haiku 5.5 23.8%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Claude Haiku 5.5 and Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 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. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Haiku 5.5 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507. Maximum output per response: Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs; Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text. Claude Haiku 5.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 5.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the newest, released Oct 7, 2026. Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 came out Jul 25, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 5.5 Jun 2026.

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