Skip to main content
Radar

Keep up with the models you depend on. Follow price changes, retirements, and API updates.Follow the models you depend on.

Follow model changes
Anthropic logo
Model A
Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

52.79/100

Supported · Public rank #111

90% interval 40.265.3

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs o3-mini

Updated September 10, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

OpenAI logo
Model B
o3-mini

OpenAI

46.83/100

Supported · Public rank #150

90% interval 34.659.1

Decision reading

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

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.

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    o3-mini

    o3-mini 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

    O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

  • 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. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

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
1
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
9
o3-mini only
4
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5
27.2
Supported · #144/151
o3-mini
45.3
Estimated · #88/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 4 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5
44.2
Estimated · #115/183
o3-mini
39.7
Supported · #134/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
27.0
Supported · #142/152
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
28.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not ranked
o3-mini
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

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.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

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
o3-mini
$0.0033
Fits in one request

o3-mini 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
o3-mini
$0.0682
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
o3-mini
$0.286
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

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

o3-mini

200K

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

o3-mini

Not published

Documented inputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Haiku 4.5

Not sourced

o3-mini

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Haiku 4.5

Non-Reasoning

o3-mini

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

o3-mini

Proprietary

License

Claude Haiku 4.5

Proprietary

o3-mini

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Haiku 4.5

2025-10-15

o3-mini

2025-01-31

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
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.065 vs $0.0682. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.09 vs $0.286.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 200K.

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 evidence14 rows

Agentic

  • JobBench

    Claude Haiku 4.516.0%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.543.8%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Haiku 4.573.3%
    Source
    o3-mini49.3%
    Source

    Claude Haiku 4.5 leads this result

  • VulcanBench v3

    Claude Haiku 4.576.2%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.541.2%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.566.6%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.572.2%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Haiku 4.578.7%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    o3-mini86.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    o3-mini77.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Claude Haiku 4.55.903%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Haiku 4.52.083%
    Source
    o3-mini

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME 2024

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    o3-mini87.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Claude Haiku 4.5
    o3-mini93.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3-mini?

Claude Haiku 4.5 has the higher public score estimate, 52.79 versus 46.83, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3-mini?

o3-mini scores higher for coding on the public lane, 45.3 to 27.2. O3-mini is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3-mini?

O3-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3-mini?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0035 on Claude Haiku 4.5 and $0.0033 on o3-mini; repository review costs $0.065 and $0.0682; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.09 and $0.286. Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or o3-mini?

Both models list the same context window, 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 10, 2026

Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs o3-mini

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.