Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude 3 Haiku

Anthropic

17.34/100

Supported · Public rank #234

90% interval 9.824.9

Claude 3 Haiku vs GPT-5.5

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

OpenAI logo
Model B
GPT-5.5

OpenAI

73.27/100

Supported · Public rank #9

90% interval 71.075.6

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

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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

    GPT-5.5

    GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Claude 3 Haiku

    Claude 3 Haiku has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Claude 3 Haiku

    Claude 3 Haiku has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude 3 Haiku is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Claude 3 Haiku is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • 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 3 Haiku does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3 Haiku has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Claude 3 Haiku only
0
GPT-5.5 only
38
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

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

Directional only
Claude 3 Haiku
22.5
Estimated · #181/183
GPT-5.5
67.7
Supported · #8/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 9 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude 3 Haiku
24.9
Estimated · #178/181
GPT-5.5
73.3
Supported · #7/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Claude 3 Haiku
41.3
#101/120
GPT-5.5
92.9
#7/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude 3 Haiku
Not ranked
GPT-5.5
63.9
Supported · #15/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 13 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude 3 Haiku
39.0
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
GPT-5.5
63.5
#15/22
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude 3 Haiku
Not ranked
GPT-5.5
69.6
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude 3 Haiku
Not ranked
GPT-5.5
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude 3 Haiku
25.3
Unranked · 1 rankable row
GPT-5.5
71.3
#19/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
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

Claude 3 Haiku
$0.00088
Fits in one request
GPT-5.5
$0.02
Fits in one request

Claude 3 Haiku has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude 3 Haiku
$0.01625
Fits in one request
GPT-5.5
$0.34
Fits in one request

Claude 3 Haiku has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Claude 3 Haiku
$0.0675
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
GPT-5.5
$0.5
Fits in one request

Claude 3 Haiku does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3 Haiku has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude 3 Haiku

200K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude 3 Haiku

Not published

GPT-5.5

$0.5 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Documented inputs

Claude 3 Haiku

Not sourced

GPT-5.5

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude 3 Haiku

Not sourced

GPT-5.5

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude 3 Haiku

Not sourced

GPT-5.5

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude 3 Haiku

Non-Reasoning

GPT-5.5

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude 3 Haiku

Proprietary

GPT-5.5

Proprietary

License

Claude 3 Haiku

Proprietary

GPT-5.5

Proprietary

Release date

Claude 3 Haiku

2024-03-01

GPT-5.5

2026-04-23

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
Repository review: $0.01625 vs $0.34. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.0675 vs $0.5.
Context tradeoff
GPT-5.5 has the larger documented window (1M).

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 evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.582%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CyberGym

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.581.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.584.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.578.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MCP Atlas

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.575.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Toolathlon

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.555.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • τ²-bench results

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.598%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.572.93%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.517.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.0

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.513.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • JobBench

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.542.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ExploitGym

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.513.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.576.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.558.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.582.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.569.85%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • React Native Evals

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.584.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench31

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.559.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • cursorBench32

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.558.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.543.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.585.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.582.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • MRCR v2 64K-128K

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.583.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MRCR v2 128K-256K

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.587.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-2

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.585%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ARC-AGI-3

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.50.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.593.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.593.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.552.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.541.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.593.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.588.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath (legacy)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.551.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.551.700%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.535.400%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU-Pro

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.581.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro w/ Python

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.583.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OfficeQA Pro

    Claude 3 Haiku
    GPT-5.554.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude 3 Haiku or GPT-5.5?

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, Claude 3 Haiku or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 67.7 to 22.5. Claude 3 Haiku is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 3 Haiku or GPT-5.5?

Claude 3 Haiku is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude 3 Haiku or GPT-5.5?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.00088 on Claude 3 Haiku and $0.02 on GPT-5.5; repository review costs $0.01625 and $0.34; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.0675 and $0.5. Claude 3 Haiku does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3 Haiku has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude 3 Haiku or GPT-5.5?

GPT-5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Claude 3 Haiku vs GPT-5.5

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.