ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3 32B vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 comes out ahead, 58 to 51 on our weighted score, though Qwen3 32B is 39% cheaper per token.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 32B

    Released Apr 29, 2025

    51/100
    • ECI138.5
    • Price$0.70 / $2.80
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 32B
  2. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    58/100
    • ECI142.4
    • Price$1.00 / $5.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Haiku 4.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Haiku 4.5 is our pick

Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Haiku 4.5Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4 · Qwen3 32B 138.5
  • Lowest priceQwen3 32BQwen3 32B $1.23 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Qwen3 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Qwen3 32B: Text · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen3 32BPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 32BClaude Haiku 4.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6469
Price25%4636
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%2432
Overall100%51/10058/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 32B vs Claude Haiku 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 32BAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)138.5142.4 (best)
ECI rank#106 of 148#90 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions65.7%71.2% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics66.9% (best)66.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—13.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.70 (best)$1.00
Output$2.80 (best)$5.00
Cached input—$0.10
Blended (3:1)$1.23 (best)$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)
Max output16,384 tokens64,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model IDqwen3-32bclaude-haiku-4-5
API providers1434 (best)
ReleasedApr 29, 2025Oct 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Feb 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.

  • Qwen3 32B$12.60
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is the better all-round choice, scoring 58/100 against Qwen3 32B (51). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3 32B wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 input / $2.80 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 $1.23 per million tokens for Qwen3 32B versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (1.6× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Haiku 4.5 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Haiku 4.5 142.4 (#90 of 148) and Qwen3 32B 138.5 (#106 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (139.5–144.3 vs 135.1–140.4), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%, Qwen3 32B 65.7%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3 32B 66.9%, Claude Haiku 4.5 66.7%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 32B and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Claude Haiku 4.5 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 4.5 has the largest context window at 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3 32B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 32B up to 16,384, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 32B accepts text; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Haiku 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Qwen3 32B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Claude Haiku 4.5 is proprietary.

Which is newer?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is the newest, released Oct 15, 2025. Qwen3 32B came out Apr 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 32B Apr 2025, 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 Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons