Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs o3
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); o3 #131 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and o3 share 3 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 13 to o3.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 2
- o3 only
- 13
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 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 47.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens for Claude Haiku 4.5. o3 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.
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 | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Δ | o3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 9.6 | o314.5 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 5.903%B 18.685%Winner: o3Δ 12.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; o3 scored 18.685%. o3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 4.5 | o3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | o3$2 input / $8 output | Claude Haiku 4.5 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | o3118 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | o35.38 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | o3200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge6 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 20.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -15.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 38.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
Matho3 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 71.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.58 to 47.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 18.685%.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3?
o3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 14.5 versus 4.9. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
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.