Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 3
- Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
- 0
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 58.01 versus 56.58. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 6.4 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 5.903% to 8.481%.
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 Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) 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. Claude Haiku 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).
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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 1.5 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not 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 8.481%Winner: Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Δ 2.6FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 5.903%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 2.083%B 0.000%Winner: Claude Haiku 4.5Δ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 2.083%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 0.000%. Claude Haiku 4.5 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 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128K | Claude Haiku 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
Coding1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
MathQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1154 | — | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 56.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 5.903% and 8.481%.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 6.4 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.