Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.5 397B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 54 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 4
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 54
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 57.01 versus 56.58. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 76.2%. Claude Haiku 4.5 does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. Claude Haiku 4.5 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 85.7 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin← 6.8 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Agentic | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Multilingual | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.3%B 76.2%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 2.9SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Qwen3.5 397B 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 | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Claude Haiku 4.5 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic19 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Haiku 4.5 wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 5.903% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1152 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 79% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.6% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.7% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 95.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 77.3% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 56.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 76.2%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 66.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 4.9. Claude Haiku 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.