Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6
Direct comparison between anthropic and anthropic for chat models. Specs, prices, strengths, weaknesses — decide on facts.
At a glance
- · Cheaper: Claude Haiku 4.5
- · Claude Haiku 4.5: Very cheap per million tokens — good for bulk workloads
- · Claude Opus 4.6: Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
Spec comparison
| Spec | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4.6 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | anthropic | anthropic |
| Input per 1M tokens | $1.00 / 1M | $5.00 / 1M |
| Output per 1M tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $25.00 / 1M |
| Context window | 200,000 tok | 200,000 tok |
| Max output | 8,192 tok | 32,000 tok |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2025-07 | 2025-07 |
| Vision | ||
| Tool calling | ||
| Structured output | ||
| Reasoning |
Claude Haiku 4.5 — strengths
- +Very cheap per million tokens — good for bulk workloads
- +Low latency, comparable to Gemini 3 Flash
- +Vision-capable — rare in this price tier
Claude Opus 4.6 — strengths
- +Highest hit rate on SWE-bench among closed-source models
- +Excellent at multi-day agentic tasks without drift
- +Top performance on multi-repo code analysis
Claude Haiku 4.5 — weaknesses
- −Weaker on multi-step reasoning than Sonnet
- −Only 8k output tokens — no full files in one response
Claude Opus 4.6 — weaknesses
- −Substantially pricier per token than Sonnet — rarely worth the markup
- −Higher latency, especially with extended thinking enabled