Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
59
Qwen3.5 397B
66
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #11
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.
Coding
+13.0 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
Qwen3.5 397B
$1 / $5
$0 / $0
N/A
96 t/s
N/A
2.44s
200K
128K
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 66 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
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 Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Claude Haiku 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 66 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 76.2%.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 60.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.