Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs MAI-Thinking-1

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.

56.58/100
No comparison
N/A
1 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and MAI-Thinking-1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 12 to MAI-Thinking-1.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
1
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
4
MAI-Thinking-1 only
12
Comparable categories
2 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Claude Haiku 4.5 makes more sense if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; MAI-Thinking-1 is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

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

Claude Haiku 4.5 and MAI-Thinking-1 finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

MAI-Thinking-1 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. MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, 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 MAI-Thinking-1
CategoryClaude Haiku 4.5ΔMAI-Thinking-1
MathClaude Haiku 4.54.9Margin 84.8MAI-Thinking-189.7
CodingClaude Haiku 4.573.3Margin 7.8MAI-Thinking-165.5
AgenticClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-146.0
KnowledgeClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-172.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Haiku 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapMAI-Thinking-185.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

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

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 73.3%B 73.5%
    Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 0.2
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; MAI-Thinking-1 scored 73.5%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availableMAI-Thinking-1Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KMAI-Thinking-1256KMAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46%Not comparable
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%73.5%MAI-Thinking-1 leads
SWE-bench ProSource 52.8%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
Graphwalks BFS 128KSource 90%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
GPQASource 84.2%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 84.2%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 85%Not comparable
SimpleQASource 31%Not comparable
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
AIME 2025Source 97%Not comparable
AIME26Source 94.5%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.9%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1152Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5MAI-Thinking-1Result
IFBenchSource 85%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Haiku 4.5 and MAI-Thinking-1 are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or MAI-Thinking-1?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 65.5. 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 MAI-Thinking-1?

MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 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 23, 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.