Agentic
Directional only- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #102/152
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 27.0
- Supported · #142/152
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude 4.1 Opus 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
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
2 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 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 Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 4.5 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 4.1 Opus 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 4.1 Opus is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documented
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 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus 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.
2 Shared
8 Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 4.1 Opus only
- 0
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
2 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 4.1 Opus
- 42.9
- Estimated · #103/151
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 27.2
- Supported · #144/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 4 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 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- Claude 4.1 Opus
- 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- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 4.1 Opus
- Not ranked
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 4.1 Opus | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 42.9Estimated · #102/152 | 27.0Supported · #142/152 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 2 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 42.9Estimated · #103/151 | 27.2Supported · #144/151 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 4 public rows | Directional only |
| 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.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 4.1 Opus: 74.5%Claude Haiku 4.5: 73.3%Normalized gap 1.2Claude 4.1 Opus source Claude Haiku 4.5 source
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 4.1 Opus
- $0.0525
- Fits in one request
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.0035
- Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 4.1 Opus
- $0.975
- Fits in one request
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.065
- Fits in one request
Claude Haiku 4.5 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 4.1 Opus
- $4.05
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.09
- Does not fit in one request
Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus 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.
SpecificationClaude 4.1 OpusClaude Haiku 4.5
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 4.1 Opus
200K
Claude Haiku 4.5
API model ID
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude 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.
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not published
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingDocumented inputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 4.1 Opus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 4.1 Opus
Non-Reasoning
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
License
Claude 4.1 Opus
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 4.1 Opus
2025-08-01
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Anthropic as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.975 vs $0.065. Cache-heavy agent loop: $4.05 vs $0.09.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 200K.
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 evidence10 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Shared sourceClaude 4.1 Opus21.9%Claude Haiku 4.516.0%Claude 4.1 Opus leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude 4.1 Opus—Claude Haiku 4.543.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 4.1 Opus74.5%SourceClaude Haiku 4.573.3%SourceClaude 4.1 Opus leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Claude 4.1 Opus—Claude Haiku 4.576.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude 4.1 Opus—Claude Haiku 4.541.2%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude 4.1 Opus—Claude Haiku 4.566.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 42.02, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.9 to 27.2. Claude 4.1 Opus 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 4.1 Opus or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Claude 4.1 Opus scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 42.9 to 27. Claude 4.1 Opus is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Haiku 4.5?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0525 on Claude 4.1 Opus and $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5; repository review costs $0.975 and $0.065; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $4.05 and $0.09. Claude 4.1 Opus does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 4.1 Opus has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 4.1 Opus or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Both models list the same context window, 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 10, 2026
Watch Claude 4.1 Opus 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.