Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Inkling

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.31/100
Margin
12.7pts
winning →
Thinking Machines Lab
69/100
1 category wins1 category wins

Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 unranked; Inkling #17

BenchAlign evidence: Claude Haiku 4.5 estimated; Inkling not scored. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Inkling share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 15 to Inkling.

Updated July 15, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
4
Inkling only
15
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Pick Inkling if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Inkling is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 69 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Inkling's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 77.6%. 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 Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.87 input / $4.68 output per 1M tokens for Inkling. Inkling is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Inkling 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 Inkling
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔInkling
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9Margin 92.2Inkling97.1
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3Margin 4.7Inkling68.6
AgenticClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling69.4
KnowledgeClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling51.7
MultimodalClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling76.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapInkling79.8

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Inkling
  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.3%B 77.6%
    Winner: InklingΔ 4.3
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Inkling scored 77.6%. Inkling wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5InklingComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputInkling$1.87 input / $4.68 outputClaude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableInklingNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableInklingNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KInkling1MInkling lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
JobBenchSource 16.0%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 77.1%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 74.1%Not comparable
Design Arena Agentic Web DevSource 1258Not comparable
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%77.6%Inkling leads
SWE-bench ProSource 54.3%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 63.8%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
GPQASource 87.9%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 87.9%Not comparable
HLESource 46%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 30%Not comparable
MathInkling wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
AIME26Source 97.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1156Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource 73.5%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82%Not comparable
CharXiv w/o toolsSource 78.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5InklingResult
IFBenchSource 79.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling?

Inkling is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 69 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 77.6%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Inkling?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 68.6. 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 Inkling?

Inkling has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 4.9. Claude Haiku 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 15, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.