Coding
Directional only- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 73.3
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 64.9
- Weighted basis
- 1 vs 2 rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B
Updated August 13, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.5-27B has the higher public score estimate, 59.64 versus 56.28, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.5-27B
Qwen3.5-27B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
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. Qwen3.5-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
5 Claude Haiku 4.5 only
1 Shared
15 Qwen3.5-27B only
- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 5
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 15
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.
Agentic
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 52.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 60.6
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 82.7
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 3 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- 4.9
- Qwen3.5-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 2 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 82.2
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- Not measured
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 0 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Haiku 4.5
- Not measured
- Qwen3.5-27B
- 95.0
- Weighted basis
- 0 vs 1 rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.5-27B | Weighted basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 73.3 | 64.9 | Directional only1 vs 2 rows | Directional only |
| Agentic | Not measured | 52.0 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not measured | 60.6 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not measured | 82.7 | Not comparable0 vs 3 rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 4.9 | Not measured | Not comparable2 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not measured | 82.2 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not measured | Not measured | Not comparable0 vs 0 rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not measured | 95.0 | Not comparable0 vs 1 rows | Not comparable |
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.
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Haiku 4.5: 73.3%Qwen3.5-27B: 72.4%Normalized gap 0.9Claude Haiku 4.5 source Qwen3.5-27B source
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
- Qwen3.5-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.065
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Haiku 4.5
- $0.09
- Does not fit in one request
- Qwen3.5-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5-27B has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Haiku 4.5Qwen3.5-27B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Qwen3.5-27B
262K
API model ID
Claude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingQwen3.5-27B
Not sourced
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 pricingQwen3.5-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-27B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-27B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-27B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.5-27B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5-27B
Open Weight
License
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5-27B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
Qwen3.5-27B
2026-03-04
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
- Qwen3.5-27B has the higher public score estimate, 59.64 versus 56.28, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.5-27B has the larger documented window (262K).
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 evidence21 rows
Agentic
JobBench
Claude Haiku 4.516.0%SourceQwen3.5-27B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B41.6%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B61%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B56.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B39.41%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Haiku 4.573.3%SourceQwen3.5-27B72.4%SourceClaude Haiku 4.5 leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Claude Haiku 4.578.3%SourceQwen3.5-27B—Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Haiku 4.53.5%SourceQwen3.5-27B—Not directly comparable
SWE-Rebench
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B58.9%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
LongBench v2
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B60.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
Math
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude Haiku 4.5—Qwen3.5-27B95%SourceNot directly comparable
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the higher public score estimate, 59.64 versus 56.28, 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 Qwen3.5-27B?
The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. 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 Qwen3.5-27B?
The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.
Which costs less, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5-27B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated August 13, 2026
Watch Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-27B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.