Model comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Anthropic against InclusionAI, compared on context, price, and verified benchmark results.
Catalog record checked August 13, 2026; individual provider fields may change.
Anthropic
Claude Haiku 4.5
Budget
InclusionAI
Ling 3.0 Flash
Budget · Open weights
| Specification | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Ling 3.0 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | InclusionAI |
| Tier | Budget | Budget |
| Context window | 200K | Winner: 262K |
| Max output | 64K | Not verified |
| Input / 1M tokens | $1 | Winner: $0.075 |
| Output / 1M tokens | $5 | Winner: $0.22 |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Parameters | Not disclosed | 124B total / 5.1B active (MoE) |
| Reasoning levels | Not verified | Not verified |
| Modalities | text, image | text |
| Released | October 15, 2025 | July 24, 2026 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (2026-08-08) | 24 | Winner: 38 |
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.
Ling 3.0 Flash
InclusionAI's cost-focused Flash tier for high-frequency hybrid reasoning and agent loops at low list rates.
Best for
- High-volume agent loops
- Cost-sensitive chat and extraction
- Fast hybrid reasoning
Watch out
Native context is 256Ki tokens (262,144). Confirm serving provider and current list before committing volume.
Common questions
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Ling 3.0 Flash
Answered from the verified figures on this page rather than general guidance.
Is Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash cheaper for input?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.075 per million input tokens, against $1 for Claude Haiku 4.5 — roughly 13× 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 Ling 3.0 Flash cheaper for output?
Ling 3.0 Flash is cheaper at $0.22 per million output tokens, against $5 for Claude Haiku 4.5 — roughly 23× 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 Ling 3.0 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash accepts 262K 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 Ling 3.0 Flash?
Both sit in the budget tier, so the choice usually comes down to price and context rather than capability. Claude Haiku 4.5 suits high-volume classification; Ling 3.0 Flash suits high-volume agent loops.
Can I self-host Claude Haiku 4.5 or Ling 3.0 Flash?
Ling 3.0 Flash publishes open weights, but self-hosting and third-party provider access depend on the licence, hardware, serving support, and availability. Claude Haiku 4.5 is a closed model whose supported access paths are controlled by its provider.
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.