Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 5
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (4)
Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 by Anthropic against Llama 5 by Meta across real-world coding, reasoning, token economics, and latency.
Beliebige Modelle wechseln & vergleichen
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Live comparison: no in-depth editorial review has been published for this pair yet.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Ultraschnelle Echtzeit-InferenzClaude Haiku 4.5 von Anthropic ist ein KI-Modell für ultraschnelle Echtzeit-Antworten, niedrige Latenz und Hochdurchsatz-Routing mit 200K Kontextfenster, 140 Token/s Durchsatz, einem Intelligenz-Index von 54/100 und $1/$5 pro 1M Token.
$1.00 / 1M
$5.00 / 1M
200K tokens
58.2%
Llama 5
Open-Weights-BasismodellLlama 5 von Meta ist ein KI-Modell für Self-Hosting im eigenen Rechenzentrum, Fine-Tuning und volle Datensouveränität mit 5M Kontextfenster, 65 Token/s Durchsatz, einem Intelligenz-Index von 94/100 und kostenlosem Open-Weights-Zugang.
$0.00 / 1M
$0.00 / 1M
5M tokens
74%
Wichtigste Unterschiede auf einen Blick
- Llama 5 is 1.0x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Llama 5 has a larger context window (5M vs 200K tokens).
- Claude Haiku 4.5 is faster at 140 tok/s vs 65 tok/s.
- Llama 5 leads on SWE-bench coding (74.0% vs 58.2%).
| Feature | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Llama 5 |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 54 | 94 |
Provider | Anthropic | Meta |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $1.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $5.00 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.77 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text | 5M tokens~7,500 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 64K | 128K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 140 tok/s | 65 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 58.2% | 74% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 62.1% | 84% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.10 / 1M | $0.00 / 1M |
Wer gewinnt in welcher Disziplin?
At-a-glance decision frameworkGeprüfte Benchmark-Ergebnisse im Vergleich
Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.
Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.
Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.
Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.
Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latenz & Antwortzeit
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Interaktiver Token-Kosten-Simulator
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Claude Haiku 4.5 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 200K Kontextfenster und bis zu 64K maximale Output-Token (SWE-bench Verified 58.2% · GPQA Diamond 62.1%)
- Hohe Generierungsgeschwindigkeit von 140 Token/Sekunde bei nur 280 ms Erstlatenz (TTFT)
- Effiziente API-Struktur ($1/$5 pro 1M Token) inklusive Prompt-Caching, Tool-Calling und strikter JSON-Ausgabe
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Proprietäres Cloud-Modell ohne Möglichkeit zum lokalen Download der Modellgewichte
- Bei extrem komplexen mehrstufigen Forschungsfragen bieten schwere Reasoning-Spezialmodelle noch tiefere Analysen
Llama 5 · Strengths & Key Advantages
- 5M Kontextfenster und bis zu 128K maximale Output-Token (SWE-bench Verified 74% · GPQA Diamond 84%)
- Hohe Generierungsgeschwindigkeit von 65 Token/Sekunde bei nur 850 ms Erstlatenz (TTFT)
- Offene Modellgewichte (600B+ total (~40-80B )) für lokales Self-Hosting und Fine-Tuning über vLLM, SGLang oder Ollama
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Erfordert dedizierte GPU-Hardware mit ausreichend VRAM für den lokalen Betrieb in voller Präzision
- Bei extrem komplexen mehrstufigen Forschungsfragen bieten schwere Reasoning-Spezialmodelle noch tiefere Analysen
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Llama 5 |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.70 | $0.00 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 20K | 40K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 10K | 20K |
Technische Spezifikationen
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Llama 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 | meta-llama/Llama-5 |
| API Protocol | Anthropic Messages API + AWS Bedrock + Vertex AI | OpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI |
| Release Date | 2025-10 | 2026-04 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | July 2025 | January 2026 |
| Architecture | Lightweight High-Speed Multimodal Transformer | Mixture-of-Experts with recursive self-improvement (~600B total, 40-80B active) |
| Parameters | Confidential | 600B+ total (~40-80B active) |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | 4,000 – 10,000 RPM (Tier 4 + Priority Tier) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPM | Unlimited (Hardware-bound on self-hosted GPU) / 10,000 RPM Cloud · Unlimited local throughput / 10M+ TPM Managed Cloud |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Standard rate up to 200K tokens; 2x input/output tier above 200K tokens | Free across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales) |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | $0.1/1M cached read (90% off); 5-min default & 1-hour extended TTL | Automatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost) |
| Computer Use / GUI Agent | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) | Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops) |
| MCP & Parallel Tool Calling | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema | Native MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema |
| Web Search Grounding & Sandbox | Native Web Search Citations + Code Execution Tool + MCP Connectors | Supported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Custom Model Tuning via Amazon Bedrock & Prompt Distillation | Full Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory) |
| Multimodal Token Billing | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) | Text BPE (~4 chars/token) · Vision (~258–765 tokens per image tile) · Audio (~25–32 tokens/sec) · Video (~258–300 tokens/sec) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) | BF16 / FP16, FP8 Dynamic, INT4 AWQ / GPTQ, GGUF (Q4_K_M / Q8_0) · 372 GB VRAM (4-bit Quantized) · 1290 GB VRAM (Native BF16) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Anthropic RSP ASL-2 / ASL-3 Constitutional Safety Evaluated | Open-Weights System Card + Customizable Guardrail Layer (Llama Guard / ShieldGemma) |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier | 100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text, vision, video, audio |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 5: Schnelle Antworten (FAQ)
Which is more intelligent, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 5?
Llama 5 is more intelligent. It scores 94 compared with 54 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is faster, generating 140 tokens per second compared with 65 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Llama 5 is cheaper at $0.00 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.77 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.28s compared with 0.85s.
Which model has a larger context window?
Llama 5 has a larger context window, supporting 5M tokens compared with 200K tokens.
Fazit
Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 for optimal für ultraschnelle echtzeit-antworten, niedrige latenz und hochdurchsatz-routing, enterprise-rag-systeme und skalierbare api-pipelines., or choose Llama 5 for optimal für self-hosting im eigenen rechenzentrum, fine-tuning und volle datensouveränität, enterprise-rag-systeme und skalierbare api-pipelines..
Häufig gestellte Fragen (FAQ)
Which is cheaper: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 5?+
Claude Haiku 4.5 costs $1/1M input and $5/1M output tokens, while Llama 5 costs $0/1M input and $0/1M output tokens.
Which model has a larger context window: Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 5?+
Claude Haiku 4.5 supports 200K tokens whereas Llama 5 supports 5M tokens.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Aion-3.0 vs. Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
- Aion-3.0 vs. Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
- Aion-Mini vs. Laguna XS 2.1: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
- Aya Expanse 32B vs. Llama 3.2 90B Vision: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
- Aya Expanse 8B vs. Command R+: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
- Aya Expanse 8B vs. Qwen 2.5 7B Instruct: Benchmarks, API-Preise & Geschwindigkeit im Vergleich (2026)Vergleich
Benchmark scores, token prices, and rate limits evolve rapidly as AI labs release model updates. Always verify current specifications and pricing on the official provider documentation.
Offizielle Quellen: Anthropic & Meta Official Documentation