Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Llama 4 Maverick

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

56.58/100
Margin
33.1pts
← winning
23.49/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Llama 4 Maverick #191 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Llama 4 Maverick share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 16 to Llama 4 Maverick.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
3
Llama 4 Maverick only
16
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Llama 4 Maverick only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you need the larger 1M context window.

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

Why this result

Claude Haiku 4.5 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.58 to 23.49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 4.9 against 0.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 5.903% to 0.690%.

Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Llama 4 Maverick. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Llama 4 Maverick 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 Llama 4 Maverick
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔLlama 4 Maverick
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9Margin 4.2Llama 4 Maverick0.7
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3MarginNo overlapLlama 4 MaverickNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Llama 4 Maverick
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 5.903%B 0.690%
    Winner: Claude Haiku 4.5Δ 5.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Llama 4 Maverick scored 0.690%. Claude Haiku 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputLlama 4 Maverick$0 input / $0 outputLlama 4 Maverick has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableLlama 4 Maverick121 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableLlama 4 Maverick0.95 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KLlama 4 Maverick1MLlama 4 Maverick lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
JobBenchSource 16.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 1.3%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 17.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 0.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource -16Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 16.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 33.1%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
AA-LCRSource 46.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 14.3%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 67.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -41.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.3%Not comparable
MathClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%0.690%Claude Haiku 4.5 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1154903Claude Haiku 4.5 leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 62.1%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Llama 4 MaverickResult
AA-IFBenchSource 43.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 23.49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 0.690%.

Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Llama 4 Maverick?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 4.9 versus 0.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Haiku 4.5
API / mo$4,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Llama 4 Maverick
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$2,610
Break-even
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

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.