Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Phi-4

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
55.85/100
Margin
33.5pts
← winning
Microsoft
22.32/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #80 (Estimated); Phi-4 #202 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Phi-4 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 11 to Phi-4.

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Haiku 4.5 only
5
Phi-4 only
11
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Phi-4 is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Claude Haiku 4.5 is priced at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Phi-4. Claude Haiku 4.5 has the larger context window at 200K, compared with 16K for Phi-4.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 outputPhi-4$0 input / $0 outputPhi-4 has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Haiku 4.5Not availablePhi-435 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Haiku 4.5Not availablePhi-42.02 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Haiku 4.5200KPhi-416KClaude Haiku 4.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
JobBenchSource 16.0%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 0%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 73.3%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 26.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
AA-LCRSource 0.0%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.0%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 4.9%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 57.5%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 4.1%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -56.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 13.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 80.5%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 5.903%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1152Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Haiku 4.5Phi-4Result
AA-IFBenchSource 23.5%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Can I compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and Phi-4 on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

What data is available for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Phi-4 today?

Claude Haiku 4.5: $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens Phi-4: $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026