Head-to-Head Model Comparison

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 5

Benchmarks, API Token Pricing, Context Window & Speed Comparison

Verificato dal team di ricerca di GetInfoUsUltima verifica: October 2026Politica editoriale
Condividi
Related topics (4)
AnthropicMetalightweightopen-source

Compare Claude 3.5 Haiku by Anthropic against Llama 5 by Meta across real-world coding, reasoning, token economics, and latency.

Confronto Diretto (VS)

Cambia e Confronta Qualsiasi Modello

Select any AI models from our verified benchmark database to generate live side-by-side matrices.

Profile
Profile
Multi-Model Arena Stack:
5-Model Matrix Workbench

Live comparison: no in-depth editorial review has been published for this pair yet.

Popular Matchups:
Anthropic

Claude 3.5 Haiku

IA Agentica e Strumenti Autonomi

Claude 3.5 Haiku di Anthropic è un modello di IA progettato per i workflow agentici autonomi, il tool calling e l’automazione multi-step, con finestra di contesto da 200K, velocità di 130 token/s, indice di intelligenza di 36/100 e tariffa

Intelligence Index36 / 100
Input Token:

$0.80 / 1M

Output Token:

$4.00 / 1M

Context Window:

200K tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

40.6%

Meta

Llama 5

Modello Base a Pesi Aperti

Llama 5 di Meta è un modello di IA progettato per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, con finestra di contesto da 5M, velocità di 65 token/s, indice di intelligenza di 94/100 e tariffa di

Intelligence Index94 / 100
Input Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Output Token:

$0.00 / 1M

Context Window:

5M tokens

SWE-bench Verified:

74%

Differenze Chiave a Colpo d’Occhio

  • 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 3.5 Haiku is faster at 130 tok/s vs 65 tok/s.
  • Llama 5 leads on SWE-bench coding (74.0% vs 40.6%).
Need definitions for token pricing, context, or benchmarks?Explore AI Glossary →
FeatureClaude 3.5 HaikuLlama 5
Intelligence Index
Composite reasoning & knowledge score (0-100)
3694
Provider
AnthropicMeta
Input Price
Cost per million input tokens
$0.80 / 1M$0.00 / 1M
Output Price
Cost per million output tokens
$4.00 / 1M$0.00 / 1M
Blended Price
Weighted 7:2:1 cache:input:output per 1M
$0.62 / 1M$0.00 / 1M
Context Window
Maximum input + output tokens
200K tokens~300 A4 pages of text5M tokens~7,500 A4 pages of text
Max Output Tokens
Per single request
8K128K
Throughput Speed
Tokens generated per second
130 tok/s65 tok/s
SWE-bench Verified
Real-world software engineering
40.6%74%
GPQA Diamond
Graduate-level reasoning
41.6%84%
Cached Input Price
Prompt caching discount per 1M tokens
$0.08 / 1M$0.00 / 1M

Chi vince in ogni categoria?

At-a-glance decision framework
Coding
Llama 5
+33.4% SWE-bench lead
Cost
Llama 5
1.0x cheaper monthly runtime
Speed
Claude 3.5 Haiku
+100% faster generation
Context
Llama 5
5M tokens window

Punteggi Benchmark Verificati

Official evaluation metrics verified by independent third-party research labs.

Claude 3.5 HaikuLlama 5
SWE-bench Verified (Autonomous Coding)

Industry benchmark evaluating real-world GitHub issue resolution and multi-file debugging.

40.6%vs74%
GPQA Diamond (Doctorate-Level Science & Math)

Challenging questions created by domain experts to test complex PhD-level reasoning.

41.6%vs84%
MMLU-Pro (Multi-task Language Understanding)

Hardened reasoning and academic knowledge benchmark with reduced lucky-guess probability.

69.2%vs87%
LMSYS Chatbot Arena Elo

Crowdsourced human preference evaluation based on blind, head-to-head model battles.

1260ptsvs1485pts
Humanity's Last Exam (Frontier Expert Knowledge)

Extremely difficult, closed-ended questions spanning the frontier of human expert knowledge.

6.7%vsN/A
Terminal-Bench (Agentic Coding & Terminal Use)

Autonomous multi-step tasks executed inside a real command-line terminal environment.

26.8%vsN/A
SciCode (Scientific Computing)

Research-grade coding problems drawn from real scientific and numerical workloads.

24.4%vsN/A
LiveCodeBench (Competitive Coding)

Contamination-free competitive programming problems collected continuously over time.

43.6%vs68%
AIME (Advanced Math Competition)

American Invitational Mathematics Examination — multi-step Olympiad-level reasoning.

47.8%vs88%
Long-Context Reasoning

Accuracy when reasoning over very large inputs that fill the model context window.

62.3%vsN/A
Generation Speed (Throughput)

Tokens emitted per second during active generation streaming.

130 tok/s vs65 tok/s

Latenza e Tempo di Risposta

Time to first token (TTFT) and estimated end-to-end response time for a typical 500-token response.

Time to First Token (TTFT)Lower is better
Claude 3.5 Haiku0.38s
Llama 50.85s
Est. End-to-End Response (500 tokens)TTFT + generation time
Claude 3.5 Haiku4.23s
Llama 58.54s

Simulatore Interattivo dei Costi Token

Adjust sliders to calculate projected monthly cloud API spending with prompt caching discounts.

100K / day
10K500K1M
30K / day
5K150K300K
50% cached
0% (Cold)50%90% (Warm)
Claude 3.5 Haiku Monthly API Bill
$4.92 / month
$0.8/1M in · $4/1M out
Llama 5 Monthly API Bill
$0.00 / month
$0/1M in · $0/1M out
Llama 5 saves approximately $4.92 / month (100%) under this workload.1.0x Savings

Claude 3.5 Haiku · Strengths & Key Advantages

  • Finestra di contesto da 200K con capacità massima di output fino a 8K token (SWE-bench Verified 40.6% · GPQA Diamond 41.6%)
  • Throughput elevato di 130 token/secondo con latenza al primo token (TTFT) di soli 380 ms
  • Economia API competitiva ($0.8/$4 per 1M di token) con supporto per prompt caching, tool calling e output JSON strutturati
Considerations & Trade-offs
  • Modello cloud proprietario chiuso; non consente il download locale dei pesi per l’esecuzione offline
  • Nelle dimostrazioni scientifiche più estreme, i modelli di ragionamento pesante dedicati offrono maggiore profondità

Llama 5 · Strengths & Key Advantages

  • Finestra di contesto da 5M con capacità massima di output fino a 128K token (SWE-bench Verified 74% · GPQA Diamond 84%)
  • Throughput elevato di 65 token/secondo con latenza al primo token (TTFT) di soli 850 ms
  • Pesi aperti (600B+ total (~40-80B )) pronti per il self-hosting locale o su cloud privato tramite vLLM, SGLang o Ollama
Considerations & Trade-offs
  • Richiede server GPU dedicati con sufficiente memoria VRAM per l’esecuzione locale a piena precisione
  • Nelle dimostrazioni scientifiche più estreme, i modelli di ragionamento pesante dedicati offrono maggiore profondità

Token Use & Task Economics

Estimated cost and token consumption to complete one representative agentic task.

MetricClaude 3.5 HaikuLlama 5
Cost per Task
Estimated USD to finish one task
$0.90$0.00
Output Tokens / Task
Tokens generated per task
45K40K
Reasoning Tokens / Task
Thinking tokens burned per task
0K20K

Specifiche Tecniche

Architecture, release timeline, capabilities, and modalities.

FeatureClaude 3.5 HaikuLlama 5
Official API Model ID (SDK)claude-3-5-haiku-20241101meta-llama/Llama-5
API ProtocolAnthropic Messages API + AWS Bedrock + Vertex AIOpenAI-Compatible REST / vLLM / SGLang / HuggingFace TGI
Release Date2024-112026-04
Knowledge CutoffJuly 2024January 2026
ArchitectureOptimized Lightweight TransformerMixture-of-Experts with recursive self-improvement (~600B total, 40-80B active)
ParametersConfidential600B+ total (~40-80B active)
Enterprise Rate Limits (RPM / TPM)4,000 – 10,000 RPM (Tier 4 + Priority Tier) · 800,000 – 2,000,000 TPMUnlimited (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 tokensFree across full context window (only KV-cache VRAM scales)
Prompt Cache Policy & TTL$0.08/1M cached read (90% off); 5-min default & 1-hour extended TTLAutomatic prefix KV-caching in vLLM / SGLang (0 cost)
Computer Use / GUI AgentSupported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops)Supported (Screen coordinate grounding, browser & desktop GUI action loops)
MCP & Parallel Tool CallingNative MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON SchemaNative MCP Client/Server ready · Parallel function calling · 100% Strict JSON Schema
Web Search Grounding & SandboxNative Web Search Citations + Code Execution Tool + MCP ConnectorsSupported via external Tavily/Exa Search & E2B/Docker Sandbox tools
Official Fine-Tuning SupportCustom Model Tuning via Amazon Bedrock & Prompt DistillationFull Weights SFT, LoRA, QLoRA, DPO & GRPO RL (Unsloth / Axolotl / Llama-Factory)
Multimodal Token BillingText 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 VRAMCloud-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 ClassificationAnthropic RSP ASL-2 / ASL-3 Constitutional Safety EvaluatedOpen-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 Tier100% Air-Gapped On-Premises / Private VPC · Full HIPAA, GDPR & SOC2 Control
Input Modalitiestext, visiontext, vision, video, audio
Output Modalitiestexttext

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 5: Risposte Rapide (FAQ)

Which is more intelligent, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Llama 5?

Llama 5 is more intelligent. It scores 94 compared with 36 on the composite Intelligence Index.

Which model is faster?

Claude 3.5 Haiku is faster, generating 130 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 $0.62 (7:2:1 cache:input:output ratio).

Which model has lower latency?

Claude 3.5 Haiku has lower latency, with a time to first token of 0.38s 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.

Verdetto

Choose Claude 3.5 Haiku for ideale per i workflow agentici autonomi, il tool calling e l’automazione multi-step, sistemi rag aziendali e integrazioni api scalabili., or choose Llama 5 for ideale per il self-hosting su infrastruttura privata, il fine-tuning e la piena sovranità dei dati, sistemi rag aziendali e integrazioni api scalabili..

Domande Frequenti (FAQ)

Which is cheaper: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Llama 5?+

Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.8/1M input and $4/1M output tokens, while Llama 5 costs $0/1M input and $0/1M output tokens.

Which model has a larger context window: Claude 3.5 Haiku or Llama 5?+

Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K tokens whereas Llama 5 supports 5M tokens.

AI Terminology & Guide
Explore Glossary →

Understand key metrics like context window, token pricing, reasoning mode, and SWE-bench scores in our comprehensive AI glossary.

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.

Fonti ufficiali: Anthropic & Meta Official Documentation