ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Haiku 4.5 48, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

    Released Sep 23, 2025

    48/100
    • ECI—
    • Price$0.40 / $4.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Haiku 4.5

    Released Oct 15, 2025

    48/100
    • 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

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Haiku 4.5 48/100, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking on price and Claude Haiku 4.5 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

  • CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
  • Lowest priceQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingQwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking $1.30 · Claude Haiku 4.5 $2.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5 200,000 · Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Haiku 4.5Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking: Text, Images · Claude Haiku 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingPublishes downloadable weights
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingClaude Haiku 4.5
Price50%4436
Inputs & features30%7080
Context window20%2432
Overall100%48/10048/100

Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.

02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking vs Claude Haiku 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3 VL 235B A22B ThinkingAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Haiku 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)—142.4
ECI rank—#90 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—71.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—66.7%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions—13.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$1.00
Output$4.00 (best)$5.00
Cached input—$0.10
Blended (3:1)$1.30 (best)$2.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 9 providersOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens (best)
Max output32,768 tokens64,000 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenProprietary
API model ID—claude-haiku-4-5
API providers934 (best)
ReleasedSep 23, 2025Oct 15, 2025
Knowledge cutoffMar 31, 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking$12.00
  • Claude Haiku 4.5$20.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking or Claude Haiku 4.5?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Claude Haiku 4.5 48/100, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking 48/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking on price and Claude Haiku 4.5 for long inputs. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking is cheaper at $0.40 input / $4.00 output per million tokens (median across 9 API providers). 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 $1.30 per million tokens for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking versus $2.00 for Claude Haiku 4.5 (1.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking has not been scored yet and Claude Haiku 4.5 has an ECI of 142.4.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking and Claude Haiku 4.5 yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking. Maximum output per response: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking up to 32,768, Claude Haiku 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking accepts text and images; 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking 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 VL 235B A22B Thinking came out Sep 23, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Thinking Mar 31, 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