Agentic
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 27.0
- Supported · #142/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
BTL-3 vs Claude Haiku 4.5
Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.
0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
BTL-3
BTL-3 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
BTL-3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
BTL-3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. BTL-3 has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
3 BTL-3 only
10 Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- Shared results
- 0
- BTL-3 only
- 3
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 10
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 27.2
- Supported · #144/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 44.2
- Estimated · #115/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 28.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- BTL-3
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | BTL-3 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 27.0Supported · #142/152 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 27.2Supported · #144/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 2 vs 4 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 44.2Estimated · #115/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 28.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
A shared-evidence shape is not available.
BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- BTL-3
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.0035
- Fits in one request
BTL-3 has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- BTL-3
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.065
- Fits in one request
BTL-3 has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- BTL-3
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.09
- Does not fit in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. BTL-3 has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationBTL-3Claude Haiku 4.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
BTL-3
Claude Haiku 4.5
API model ID
BTL-3
badtheorylabs/BTL-3
Bad Theory Labs BTL-3 model cardClaude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingCached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
BTL-3
No comparable hosted API rate
Bad Theory Labs BTL-3 model cardClaude Haiku 4.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
BTL-3
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
BTL-3
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
BTL-3
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
BTL-3
Reasoning
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
BTL-3
Open Weight
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
License
BTL-3
Open Weight
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Release date
BTL-3
2026-07-20
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- BTL-3 has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence13 rows
Agentic
Coding
HumanEval
BTL-395.1%SourceClaude Haiku 4.5—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
BTL-388.1%SourceClaude Haiku 4.5—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
BTL-3—Claude Haiku 4.573.3%SourceNot directly comparable
VulcanBench v3
BTL-3—Claude Haiku 4.576.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
BTL-3—Claude Haiku 4.541.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
BTL-3—Claude Haiku 4.566.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, BTL-3 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, BTL-3 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
BTL-3 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, BTL-3 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
BTL-3 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, BTL-3 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, BTL-3 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
BTL-3 has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch BTL-3 vs Claude Haiku 4.5
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.