Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5
Two Anthropic tiers compared on the figures that decide which one a workload actually needs.
Catalog record checked August 7, 2026; individual provider fields may change.
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
Budget
Anthropic
Claude Opus 5
Frontier
| Specification | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 5 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Tier | Budget | Frontier |
| Context window | 200K | Winner: 1M |
| Max output | 64K | Winner: 128K |
| Input / 1M tokens | Winner: $1 | $5 |
| Output / 1M tokens | Winner: $5 | $25 |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Parameters | Not disclosed | Not disclosed |
| Reasoning levels | Not verified | low, medium, high, xhigh, max |
| Modalities | text, image | text, image |
| Released | October 15, 2025 | July 24, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index [max] (2026-08-08) | 24 | Winner: 63 |
Prices are USD per million tokens at standard rates, excluding batch and caching discounts. Bold indicates the better figure where one is objectively better. Values we could not confirm from the provider are shown as “Not verified” rather than estimated.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Anthropic's cheapest tier for high-volume classification and routine extraction.
Best for
- High-volume classification
- Routine extraction
- Cost-sensitive Anthropic stacks
Watch out
A generation behind the 5-series models it sits alongside in the lineup.
Claude Opus 5
Anthropic's frontier tier, and ahead of Fable 5 on both recorded benchmarks at half the price.
Best for
- Agentic coding
- Long-context analysis
- Multi-step engineering work
Watch out
Output tokens cost five times input — long generations dominate the bill.
Benchmark
DeepSWE 1.1 in context
Only Claude Opus 5 has a published DeepSWE 1.1 result. It is shown against the wider field, with cost per completed task alongside the score.
Local leader
Claude Opus 5 [max]
74%
Rows shown
24
Highest published reasoning effort per model (not best Pass@1)
Snapshot date
2026-08-13
Mirrored from deepswe.datacurve.ai
Better is toward the top-right (higher pass rate, lower cost). X-axis is reversed to match DeepSWE’s public chart. v1.1 uses average cost / tokens / steps; v1 uses published medians.
| # | Model | Pass@1 | Cost / task | Tokens / task | Steps / task |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude Opus 5 [max] | 74% | $11.84 | 118k | 99 |
| 2 | GPT-5.6 Sol [max] | 73% | $8.39 | 60k | 61 |
| 3 | Claude Fable 5 [max] | 70% | $21.63 | 119k | 88 |
| 4 | GPT-5.6 Terra [max] | 70% | $4.95 | 72k | 76 |
| 5 | Kimi K3 [max] | 69% | $4.65 | 82k | 98 |
| 6 | GPT-5.6 Luna [max] | 67% | $3.03 | 73k | 102 |
| 7 | GPT-5.5 [xhigh] | 67% | $7.23 | 46k | 82 |
| 8 | Grok 4.6 [xhigh] | 67% | $5.50 | 71k | 87 |
| 9 | Gemini 3.7 Flash [high] | 65% | $2.18 | 107k | 125 |
| 10 | DeepSeek V4-Pro [max] | 63% | $0.24 | 106k | 155 |
| 11 | Claude Opus 4.8 [max] | 59% | $13.22 | 135k | 120 |
| 12 | Qwen3.8-Max [xhigh] | 58% | $3.73 | 95k | 111 |
| 13 | Muse Spark 1.2 [xhigh] | 55% | $3.70 | 99k | 101 |
| 14 | Claude Sonnet 5 [max] | 54% | $26.40 | 214k | 268 |
| 15 | Grok 4.5 [high] | 54% | $2.42 | 36k | 61 |
| 16 | DeepSeek V4-Flash [max] | 53% | $0.10 | 108k | 153 |
| 17 | Muse Spark 1.1 [xhigh] | 53% | $2.36 | 74k | 96 |
| 18 | GPT-5.4 [xhigh] | 52% | $5.65 | 71k | 70 |
| 19 | Gemini 3.6 Flash [high] | 47% | $4.42 | 96k | 117 |
| 20 | GLM 5.2 [max] | 44% | $3.92 | 78k | 129 |
| 21 | Gemini 3.5 Flash [high] | 36% | $3.45 | 76k | 105 |
| 22 | Kimi K2.7 Code | 31% | $2.82 | 59k | 149 |
| 23 | Claude Sonnet 4.6 [high] | 30% | $5.52 | 76k | 134 |
| 24 | Gemini 3.1 Pro [high] | 12% | $2.14 | 28k | 76 |
DeepSWE “Best” picks the highest published reasoning effort per model (not the highest pass rate). Small gaps may not be statistically meaningful — confirm on deepswe.datacurve.ai.
Common questions
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 5
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 5 cheaper for input?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper at $1 per million input tokens, against $5 for Claude Opus 5 — roughly 5.0× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate.
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 5 cheaper for output?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper at $5 per million output tokens, against $25 for Claude Opus 5 — roughly 5.0× the price. Output tokens usually dominate a real bill, so weigh the output rate more heavily than the input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Opus 5 accepts 1M tokens against 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5. This only matters if you routinely send very long documents or large codebases.
Should I use Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 5?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is the budget tier and Claude Opus 5 the frontier tier. The useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper one — most production volume such as classification, extraction and summarisation does not.
Next step
Choosing between them
Tier and workload decide this more reliably than a leaderboard position does.
If both sit in the same tier, the decision usually comes down to context window and output price rather than headline capability — output tokens dominate real bills.
If one is a step up within the same provider, the useful question is whether your hardest task actually fails on the cheaper tier. Most production volume — classification, extraction, summarization — does not.
Choosing a harness rather than a model — Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, Muse Code, or Lovable? Compare agentic harnesses · Latest releases.