Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.3

Updated July 30, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

55.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #82

90% interval 44.3–67.3

Grok 4.3

xAI

64.2/100

Supported · Public rank #36

90% interval 54.5–74.0

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 based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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

    Grok 4.3

    Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Grok 4.3

    Grok 4.3 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

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    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 Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

    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.

Shared results
0
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
5
Grok 4.3 only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
73.3
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
1 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
4.9
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
2 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not measured
Grok 4.3
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

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 Haiku 4.5
$0.0035
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.0025
Fits in one request

Grok 4.3 has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.065
Fits in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.07
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 Haiku 4.5
$0.09
Does not fit in one request
Grok 4.3
$0.09
Fits in one request

Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

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 Haiku 4.5

Grok 4.3

1M

API model ID

Claude Haiku 4.5

claude-haiku-4-5-20251001

Claude API pricing

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Claude Haiku 4.5

$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Grok 4.3

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Documented inputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

Grok 4.3

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Haiku 4.5

Non-Reasoning

Grok 4.3

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

License

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

Grok 4.3

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Haiku 4.5

2025-10-15

Grok 4.3

2026-04-30

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: $0.065 vs $0.07. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.09 vs $0.09.
Context tradeoff
Grok 4.3 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 evidence7 rows

Agentic

  • JobBench

    Claude Haiku 4.516.0%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Grok 4.343.86%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ResearchClawBench

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    Grok 4.312.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Haiku 4.578.3%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Haiku 4.55.903%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Haiku 4.52.083%
    Source
    Grok 4.3

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.3?

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 Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.3?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.3?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.3?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5 and $0.0025 on Grok 4.3; repository review costs $0.065 and $0.07; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.09 and $0.09. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Grok 4.3?

Grok 4.3 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated July 30, 2026

Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4.3

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.