Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Haiku 4.5 estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 1 comparable benchmark result. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 57 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- Claude Haiku 4.5 only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 57
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
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
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 53. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 88.2 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 73.4%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Haiku 4.54.9 | Margin→ 83.3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Coding | Claude Haiku 4.573.3 | Margin→ 0.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Multimodal | Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 73.3%B 73.4%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 0.1SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B 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 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Haiku 4.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Haiku 4.5200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 16.0% | — | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 73.3% | 73.4% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 35.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 31.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 20.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -21.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 18.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 49.7% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 5.903% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1156 | — | Not comparable |
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 64.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 53. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 73.4%.
Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.8 versus 73.3. 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 4.9. Claude Haiku 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.