ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Haiku 5.5

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

  1. 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
  2. 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

  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 5.5Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507: Text · Claude Haiku 5.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Publishes downloadable weights (Apache 2.0)
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Claude Haiku 5.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6989
Price25%4980
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%3760
Overall100%55/10083/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Haiku 5.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507Alibaba (Qwen)Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.8160.4 (best)
ECI rank#93 of 165#14 of 165 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions80.1%89.7% (best)
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—75.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics86.7%98.9% (best)
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions40.4% (best)23.8%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.30$0.10 (best)
Output$2.90$0.50 (best)
Cached input—$0.01
Blended (3:1)$0.95$0.20 (best)
Long-context rateSame rateOver 100K: $0.50 / $2.50
Price sourceMedian of 11 providersOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output81,920 tokens128,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · xhigh · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenApache 2.0Proprietary
API model ID—claude-haiku-5-5
API providers1233 (best)
ReleasedJul 25, 2025Oct 7, 2026
Knowledge cutoff—Jun 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.

  • Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507$8.80
  • Claude Haiku 5.5$2.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

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

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, Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 or Claude Haiku 5.5?

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 Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 and Claude Haiku 5.5 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: Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 up to 81,920, Claude Haiku 5.5 up to 128,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 235B-A22B Thinking 2507 accepts text; Claude Haiku 5.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. 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