ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Claude Haiku 3.5

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct comes out ahead, 50 to 46 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

    Released Sep 19, 2024

    50/100
    • ECI118.5
    • Price$0.05 / $0.10
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen2.5 7B Instruct

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 3.5

    Released Oct 22, 2024

    46/100
    • ECI127.0
    • Price$0.80 / $4.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 3.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is our pick

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 3.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5
  • Lowest priceQwen2.5 7B InstructQwen2.5 7B Instruct $0.063 · Claude Haiku 3.5 $1.60 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 3.5Claude Haiku 3.5 200,000 · Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 3.5Qwen2.5 7B Instruct: Text · Claude Haiku 3.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen2.5 7B InstructPublishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen2.5 7B InstructClaude Haiku 3.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%3848
Price25%10038
Inputs & features15%2560
Context window10%2532
Overall100%50/10046/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct vs Claude Haiku 3.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen2.5 7B InstructAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Haiku 3.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)118.5127.0 (best)
ECI rank#159 of 165#147 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions35.5%38.1% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics2.5%4.3% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.05 (best)$0.80
Output$0.10 (best)$4.00
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.063 (best)$1.60
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 3 providersMedian of 3 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)
Max output8,192 tokens8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningNoNo
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoNo
Availability
WeightsOpenApache 2.0Proprietary
API model ID——
API providers44
ReleasedSep 19, 2024Oct 22, 2024
Knowledge cutoff—Jul 31, 2024
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.

  • Qwen2.5 7B Instruct$0.70
  • Claude Haiku 3.5$16.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Claude Haiku 3.5?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is the better all-round choice, scoring 50/100 against Claude Haiku 3.5 (46). It leads on price. Claude Haiku 3.5 wins on capability, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct or Claude Haiku 3.5?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct is cheaper at $0.05 input / $0.10 output per million tokens (median across 3 API providers). 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 $0.063 per million tokens for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct versus $1.60 for Claude Haiku 3.5 (26× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 3.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 3.5 127.0 (#147 of 165) and Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 118.5 (#159 of 165). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (121.4–129.2 vs 110.6–121.2), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Haiku 3.5 38.1%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 35.5%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Claude Haiku 3.5 4.3%, Qwen2.5 7B Instruct 2.5%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct and Claude Haiku 3.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 3.5 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 3.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen2.5 7B Instruct. Maximum output per response: Qwen2.5 7B Instruct up to 8,192, Claude Haiku 3.5 up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct accepts text; Claude Haiku 3.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Haiku 3.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen2.5 7B Instruct publishes its weights (Apache 2.0) and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 3.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 3.5 is the newest, released Oct 22, 2024. Qwen2.5 7B Instruct came out Sep 19, 2024. Knowledge cutoff: Claude Haiku 3.5 Jul 31, 2024.

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