Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Claude 3 Haiku
Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison
Related topics (12)
Claude 3.5 Haiku by Anthropic and Claude 3 Haiku by Anthropic represent two of the frontier AI models analyzed in our comprehensive 2026 AI benchmark and LLM comparison. In this head-to-head evaluation, we examine API token pricing, context window specifications, inference speed (tokens per second), and empirical reasoning performance. From a pure economic perspective, Claude 3 Haiku holds a notable pricing advantage for token ingestion. On output generation, Claude 3 Haiku is more economical per million generated tokens. In data-heavy architectures requiring extensive repository or document analysis, both models provide an identical memory horizon with 200K tokens. In latency-sensitive production environments, Claude 3.5 Haiku leads in tokens-per-second throughput, making it ideal for real-time conversational agents and high-concurrency workflows. Below is the complete empirical head-to-head breakdown across cost, speed, context, and capability matrices.
Switch & Compare Any Models
Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Sub-Agent Speed DemonAnthropic's fastest model, delivering high intelligence at rapid execution speeds, matching the coding capabilities of previous-generation flagship models.
$0.80 / 1M
$4.00 / 1M
200K tokens
40.6%
Claude 3 Haiku
Ultra-Fast LightweightAnthropic’s ultra-fast, compact model designed for instant responsiveness, lightweight document auditing, and cost-conscious production pipelines.
$0.25 / 1M
$1.25 / 1M
200K tokens
10.5%
Key Differences at a Glance
- Claude 3 Haiku is 3.2x cheaper for API usage (input + output tokens combined).
- Claude 3.5 Haiku is faster at 130 tok/s vs 125 tok/s.
- Claude 3.5 Haiku leads on SWE-bench coding (40.6% vs 10.5%).
| Feature | Claude 3.5 Haiku | Claude 3 Haiku |
|---|---|---|
Intelligence Index Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100) | 36 | 33 |
Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
Input Price Cost per million input tokens | $0.80 / 1M | $0.25 / 1M |
Output Price Cost per million output tokens | $4.00 / 1M | $1.25 / 1M |
Blended Price Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M | $0.62 / 1M | $0.19 / 1M |
Context Window Maximum input + output tokens | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text | 200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text |
Max Output Tokens Per single request | 8K | 4K |
Throughput Speed Tokens generated per second | 130 tok/s | 125 tok/s |
SWE-bench Verified Real-world software engineering | 40.6% | 10.5% |
GPQA Diamond Graduate-level reasoning | 41.6% | 33% |
Cached Input Price Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens | $0.08 / 1M | $0.03 / 1M |
Who Wins Where?
At-a-glance decision frameworkEmpirical Head-to-Head Benchmark Scores
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.
Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.
Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.
Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.
Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.
American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.
Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.
Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.
Latency & Response Time
Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.
Real-Time Interactive Token Cost Simulator
Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.
Claude 3.5 Haiku · Strengths & Key Advantages
- High throughput of 130 tokens per second for real-time applications
- Generous 200K token context window despite compact size
- Solid software engineering performance (40.6% SWE-bench Verified)
- Accurate tool calling and strict schema output generation
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Higher output price ($4.00/1M) compared to competitor lightweight models like Gemini Flash
- Lower deep STEM reasoning than full Sonnet or o-series models
Claude 3 Haiku · Strengths & Key Advantages
- Processes 20,000 words of research in under 3 seconds
- Extremely cost-effective ($0.25/$1.25 per 1M tokens) with prompt caching discounts
- Full 200,000 token context window on a lightweight model
Considerations & Trade-offs
- Coding and mathematical reasoning scores lower than flagship tiers
- Not suited for multi-file architectural refactoring
Token Use & Task Economics
Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Haiku | Claude 3 Haiku |
|---|---|---|
Cost per Task Estimated USD to finish one task | $0.90 | $0.20 |
Output Tokens / Task Tokens generated per task | 45K | 24K |
Reasoning Tokens / Task Thinking tokens burned per task | 0K | 0K |
Technical Specifications
Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.
| Feature | Claude 3.5 Haiku | Claude 3 Haiku |
|---|---|---|
| Official API Model ID (SDK) | claude-3-5-haiku-20241101 | claude-3-haiku-20240301 |
| API Protocol | Anthropic Messages API + AWS Bedrock + Vertex AI | Anthropic Messages API + AWS Bedrock + Vertex AI |
| Release Date | 2024-11 | 2024-03 |
| Knowledge Cutoff | July 2024 | August 2023 |
| Architecture | Optimized Lightweight Transformer | Compact High-Throughput Transformer |
| Parameters | Confidential | Confidential |
| Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM) | 4,000 – 10,000 RPM (Tier 4 + Priority Tier) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPM | 4,000 – 10,000 RPM (Tier 4 + Priority Tier) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPM |
| Long-Context Tier (>128K/200K) | Standard rate up to 200K tokens; 2x input/output tier above 200K tokens | Standard rate up to 200K tokens; 2x input/output tier above 200K tokens |
| Prompt Cache Policy & TTL | $0.08/1M cached read (90% off); 5-min default & 1-hour extended TTL | $0.025/1M cached read (90% off); 5-min default & 1-hour extended TTL |
| 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 | Native Web Search Citations + Code Execution Tool + MCP Connectors |
| Official Fine-Tuning Support | Custom Model Tuning via Amazon Bedrock & Prompt Distillation | Custom Model Tuning via Amazon Bedrock & Prompt Distillation |
| 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) |
| Quantization & Min GPU VRAM | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) | Cloud-Hosted Proprietary (FP8 / BF16 Tensor Core Cluster) · Zero Local VRAM Required (100% Serverless Cloud API) |
| Safety & Frontier Classification | Anthropic RSP ASL-2 / ASL-3 Constitutional Safety Evaluated | Anthropic RSP ASL-2 / ASL-3 Constitutional Safety Evaluated |
| Enterprise Compliance (ZDR/HIPAA/SOC2) | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier | SOC2 Type II · GDPR · Zero Data Retention (ZDR) & HIPAA BAA Available on Enterprise Tier |
| Input Modalities | text, vision | text, vision |
| Output Modalities | text | text |
Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Claude 3 Haiku: Quick Answers
Which is more intelligent, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Claude 3 Haiku?
Claude 3.5 Haiku is more intelligent. It scores 36 compared with 33 on the composite Intelligence Index.
Which model is faster?
Claude 3.5 Haiku is faster, generating 130 tokens per second compared with 125 tokens per second.
Which model is cheaper to run?
Claude 3 Haiku is cheaper at $0.19 per 1M tokens blended, compared with $0.62 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).
Which model has lower latency?
Claude 3 Haiku has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.35s compared with 0.38s.
Verdict
Verdict & Model Selection Recommendation: Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku if your priority is Rapid customer support chatbots, data extraction agents, and interactive tool-using loops. Its performance in demanding tasks justifies its operational token cost. Choose Claude 3 Haiku if your workflow prioritizes Real-time customer chat, instant content moderation, and high-frequency document triage. For large-scale batch processing or customer-facing conversational interfaces, its balance of speed and economics delivers superior ROI.
Frequently asked questions
How does Claude 3.5 Haiku compare to Claude 3 Haiku in API token pricing and cost per token?+
Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.80 per 1M input tokens and $4.00 per 1M output tokens, whereas Claude 3 Haiku costs $0.25 input and $1.25 output. Overall, Claude 3 Haiku is the more cost-effective model for high-volume API pipelines. Both models support prompt caching discounts of up to 90% for repeated prompt prefixes.
Which model has a larger context window: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Claude 3 Haiku?+
Both Claude 3.5 Haiku and Claude 3 Haiku offer an identical context window of 200K tokens (~150k words). Both architectures provide equal capacity for large document ingestion, multi-file codebases, and extended multi-turn conversation histories.
Which AI model is better for software engineering and coding: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Claude 3 Haiku?+
Claude 3.5 Haiku scores 40.6% on SWE-bench Verified while Claude 3 Haiku scores 10.5%. For autonomous software engineering and multi-file debugging, Claude 3.5 Haiku holds the verified benchmark lead.
What is the difference in reasoning capability and extended thinking between Claude 3.5 Haiku and Claude 3 Haiku?+
Claude 3.5 Haiku is optimized for low-latency direct generation. In contrast, Claude 3 Haiku focuses on standard fast inference.
How does inference speed (tokens per second) compare between Claude 3.5 Haiku and Claude 3 Haiku?+
Claude 3.5 Haiku generates approximately 130 tokens per second, while Claude 3 Haiku delivers 125 tokens per second. In latency-sensitive production environments, Claude 3.5 Haiku provides faster time-to-first-token (TTFT) and higher streaming response velocity.
Can you implement a tiered LLM routing setup combining Claude 3.5 Haiku and Claude 3 Haiku to optimize costs?+
Yes! High-efficiency architectures route high-frequency routine classification and conversational tasks to Claude 3 Haiku to save operational costs, and dynamically escalate complex architectural queries or reasoning tasks to Claude 3.5 Haiku. This tiered routing pattern cuts overall API bills by up to 70%.
Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.
Related reading
- Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Gemini 2.0 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Claude 3.5 Haiku vs GPT-4o mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Claude 3 Haiku vs Gemini 1.5 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Sonar vs Claude 3 Haiku: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Aion-3.0 vs Aion-Mini: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
- Aion-3.0 vs Gemini 3.6 Flash: Benchmarks, Pricing & Speed ComparisonCompare
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.
Sources: GetInfoUs Independent AI Benchmarks & Official API Specs