Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.58/100
Margin
12.0pts
winning →
68.59/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Claude Opus 4.6 #16 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.6 share 5 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 41 to Claude Opus 4.6.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
5
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
0
Claude Opus 4.6 only
41
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Claude Opus 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Claude Opus 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 68.59 to 56.58. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Opus 4.6's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 36.3 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 5.903% to 40.700%. Claude Haiku 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Opus 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $5.00 input / $25.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. That is roughly 5.0x on output cost alone. Claude Opus 4.6 gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.6
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔClaude Opus 4.6
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9Margin→ 31.4Claude Opus 4.636.3
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3Margin← 5.2Claude Opus 4.668.1
AgenticClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.673.0
KnowledgeClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.669.1
MultimodalClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapClaude Opus 4.677.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Claude Opus 4.6

  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 5.903%B 40.700%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 34.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 40.700%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.083%B 22.900%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 20.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 2.083%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 22.900%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.3%B 80.8%
    Winner: Claude Opus 4.6Δ 7.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Claude Opus 4.6 scored 80.8%. Claude Opus 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputClaude Opus 4.6$5 input / $25 outputClaude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableClaude Opus 4.640 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableClaude Opus 4.61.78 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KClaude Opus 4.61MClaude Opus 4.6 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%36.7%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —65.4%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —83.7%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource —72.7%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —84.8%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —70.4%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource —73.7%Not comparable
CyberGymSource —66.6%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —61.85%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource —19.9%Not comparable
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%80.8%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
SWE-bench Verified*Source —75.6%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench ProSource —70.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —53.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource —65.3%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource —84.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource —57.57%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.7%Not comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource —26.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
AA-LCRSource —58.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource —2.8%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
GPQASource —91.3%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource —89.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —95%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —82%Not comparable
MMLU-Pro (Arcee)Source —89.1%Not comparable
HLESource —53%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource —40%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource —14.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source —52.1%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —37.8%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —18.6%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —3.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —45.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —76.0%Not comparable
MathClaude Opus 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%40.700%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%22.900%Claude Opus 4.6 leads
AIME25 (Arcee)Source —99.8%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 11541328Claude Opus 4.6 leads
MMMU-ProSource —77.3%Not comparable
ERQASource —51.6%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —83.1%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —64.8%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —72.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Claude Opus 4.6Result
AA-IFBenchSource —44.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Claude Opus 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 68.59 to 56.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 40.700%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 68.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.6?

Claude Opus 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 36.3 versus 4.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.