ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Nov 2, 2026

Qwen3.5 Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 73 to 57 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    73/100
    • ECI143.6
    • Price$0.10 / $0.40
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 Flash

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    57/100
    • ECI142.2
    • 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

Qwen3.5 Flash is our pick

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6 · Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 FlashClaude Haiku 4.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%6967
Price25%8234
Inputs & features15%8080
Context window10%6032
Overall100%73/10057/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.5 Flash vs Claude Haiku 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)143.6 (best)142.2
ECI rank#95 of 165 (best)#102 of 165
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions82.3% (best)71.2%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics18.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics84.4% (best)66.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions20.3% (best)13.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.10 (best)$1.00
Output$0.40 (best)$5.00
Cached input$0.01 (best)$0.10
Blended (3:1)$0.175 (best)$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window1,000,000 tokens (best)200,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)64,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoYesNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDqwen3.5-flashclaude-haiku-4-5
API providers948 (best)
ReleasedFeb 23, 2026Oct 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoff—Feb 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.

  • Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 Flash or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 73/100 against Claude Haiku 4.5 (57). It leads on capability, price and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 Flash or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (11× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 143.6 (#95 of 165) and Claude Haiku 4.5 142.2 (#102 of 165). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (141.4–145.0 vs 139.4–143.9), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%, Claude Haiku 4.5 71.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%, Claude Haiku 4.5 66.7%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.5 Flash 20.3%, Claude Haiku 4.5 13.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 Flash and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 Flash 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?

Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Haiku 4.5. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video; Claude Haiku 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

No. Qwen3.5 Flash and Claude Haiku 4.5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.5 Flash is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Claude Haiku 4.5 came out Oct 15, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: 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 Nov 2, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons