Skip to main content

Model family by Anthropic

Claude Haiku

Anthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.

Where it sits in Anthropic's lineup

  1. Claude HaikuAnthropic's small, fast Claude model family for high-volume, latency-sensitive work.This model
  2. Claude SonnetAnthropic's balanced Claude model family.Claude Sonnet 5.5
  3. Claude OpusAnthropic's high-capability Claude model family.Claude Opus 5.5
  4. Claude FableAnthropic's Claude family for demanding reasoning and long-horizon agentic work.Claude Fable 5.1
Made by
Anthropic
Releases
2 tracked
Current release
Claude Haiku 5.5

Strengths and weaknesses

Compare with other models Up to 3 beside Claude Haiku 5.5

  • Claude Haiku 5.5

Suggested comparisons

Claude Haiku 5.5 is the newest Claude Haiku release. Add its earlier releases to see how the line moved.

Claude Haiku 5.5AnthropicThis page, always on the chart

Among the 40 current releases on this chart, Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 8th of 25 on Answers in full and 13th of 38 on Long context. On Computer use, Anthropic's own figures on OSWorld 2.1 put Claude Haiku 5.5 14.8 points under Claude Opus 5.5, 11.5 points under Claude Sonnet 5.5 and 23.5 points above GPT-6 Luna. It ranks lowest on Science, 22nd of 24 and Tool use, 33rd of 38. Multimodal: not yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026.

Each axis is one public benchmark at one setting, on its own fixed 0 to 100 scale, so adding a model never moves another. A dotted bridge crosses a missing result, which is never a zero. A hollow mark is a result from another source: the maker's own figure or another lab's run, where the benchmark's usual source has not tested the model yet. The readout names it.

On the chart

  • Claude Haiku 5.5This pageResults on 11 of 12 axes$0.10 / $0.50For prompts up to 100K tokens; $0.50 / $2.50 above.241 tokens/sFirst token in 311 s

Prices and speeds read between Oct 26, 2026 and Oct 28, 2026.

Claude Haiku 5.5 on each axis11 of 12 with a result

Beside the benchmarks

Cost, speed, capacity, quality and accuracy for Claude Haiku 5.5, with where each figure sits among the 40 models GILD tracks. These measures stand beside the chart and never feed it.

Cost

$0.21per task

Cost per task. One Intelligence Index task at list price, every token counted. Run at max effort.

Speed

234tokens a second

Output speed. How fast it writes once the answer starts. Run at max effort.

First token
335 s
Whole answer
337 s

Capacity

1Mtokens

Context window. The most one request can hold, as the maker states it.

Max output
128K
Reads
Text, Images

Quality

43.4of 100

Intelligence Index. One composite score across independent evaluations. Run at max effort.

GDPval knowledge work
1,619 Elo
Terminal-Bench 4.0
32.8%
Epoch Capabilities Index
159

Hallucination

34.2%wrong when it should say “I don’t know”

Hallucination rate. Of the questions it can't get right, how often it answers anyway. Lower is better. Run at max effort.

Knowledge accuracy
34.7%

Where you can get it

12of 19 routes

Routes offering it. Of the clouds, gateways and coding products GILD tracks, those offering it today.

Open weights
No
Licence
Commercial Terms of Service
Every route and price

Figures from Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, Epoch AI, GILD's route matrix and Anthropic, read Oct 26 to Nov 1, 2026. Each measure's definition and source open under . Not yet published for Claude Haiku 5.5: Cached input.

Every value with its benchmark, run and source

Claude Haiku 5.5's result on each axis, with the benchmark, the setting and run, who reported it, the source and the date
AxisBenchmark and settingClaude Haiku 5.5RunSourceDate
Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0Pass@1 averaged over 3 runs, mini-swe-agent harness36.4%Claude Haiku 5.5Effort: not published. Harness: mini-swe-agent.Vals.aiOct 24, 2026
CodeSciCodeSubproblem accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run55%Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3Accuracy, pass@1, highest effort run75.1%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIOct 7, 2026
ScienceGPQA DiamondAccuracy, pass@1, highest effort run89.6%Effort: max. Harness: none.Epoch AIOct 7, 2026
Hard reasoningHumanity's Last ExamAccuracy, text-only questions, no tools44.4%Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Tool useAutomationBench-AAScore, Artificial Analysis run35.4%Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: Artificial Analysis AutomationBench harness.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Computer useOSWorld 2.1Partial score, offline 82-task subset, v2.1 release. Anthropic's own run at max effort in its computer-use harness, averaged over five attempts, on the 82 tasks that need no internet. It fully completed 37.1% of them.Stands in for OSWorld 2.1, partial score, full 108-task set, v2.1 release, which has no run of Claude Haiku 5.5 yet.72.4%Claude Haiku 5.5 (max)Effort: max. Harness: Anthropic computer-use harness.AnthropicReported by AnthropicOct 7, 2026
Long contextAA-LCR v1.1Accuracy, Artificial Analysis run82.7%Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
MultimodalMMMU-ProOverall accuracy, no toolsNot yet published by Anthropic or any independent evaluator, checked Nov 2, 2026
FactualityAA-Omniscience AccuracyAccuracy, Artificial Analysis run34.7%Hallucination rate 34.2% in the same run (lower is better)Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max)Effort: max. Harness: none.Artificial AnalysisOct 28, 2026
Answers in fullSpeechMap% Complete over 2,120 contested requests, reasoning-on entry. SpeechMap tested it at medium thinking and counted 18.3% of requests denied and 2.5% evaded.78.8%0.5% of requests failed at the provider and count against itEffort: medium. Harness: none.SpeechMap.AIOct 27, 2026
Instruction followingMultiChallengeAccuracy, Scale AI run. On Oct 28, 2026, Scale AI ranked it 10th. Scale does not say which reasoning setting it tested.67.7%Plus or minus 5.34 points (95% interval)Claude Haiku 5.5Effort: not published. Harness: none.Scale AI SEALOct 28, 2026

Price and speed

  • Claude Haiku 5.5 lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. For prompts up to 100K tokens; $0.50 / $2.50 above. Anthropic pricing, Oct 26, 2026.
  • Claude Haiku 5.5, at max effort, writes 240.7 output tokens per second on Anthropic's API, and its first token arrives 311 s after the request. Artificial Analysis, Oct 28, 2026.
  • Fastest on the chart is the shortest time to a 500-token answer: time to first token plus 500 tokens at the median output speed.

Every model with a result, axis by axis

57 models. A maker's own figure and another lab's run are marked with their benchmark; a missing result reads "Not yet published", never zero.

The result of every model GILD has benchmark results for, on each of the 12 axes. A vendor-reported value is marked. A model's run notes open under its row from its name, each with the axes it covers.
ModelAgentic codingCodeMathScienceHard reasoningTool useComputer useLong contextMultimodalFactualityAnswers in fullInstructions
Claude Haiku 5.536.4%55%75.1%89.6%44.4%35.4%72.4%Reported by AnthropicOSWorld 2.182.7%Not yet published34.7%78.8%67.7%
Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%61%88.8%95.6%55%71.8%80.1%Reported by Anthropic82.7%Not yet published51.5%81.6%Not yet published
Claude Opus 5.565.2%66.9%91.2%90.6%61.4%69.5%81.8%Reported by Anthropic84.7%87.7%65.5%82.8%Not yet published
Claude Fable 5.158.1%63.1%90.2%93.4%Run by Vals.ai59.1%59.4%80.7%Reported by Anthropic85.3%86.3%Run by Moonshot AI68.4%72.4%Not yet published
Claude Opus 553.5%56.4%85.6%93.9%54.9%56.6%77.7%79.3%84.7%60.9%73.7%Not yet published
Claude Sonnet 510.6%54.3%65.6%80.3%41.3%36.5%57%Reported by Anthropic82%77.3%40.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Claude Fable 541.4%61%87%85.9%55.5%54.1%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published65.4%64.8%63.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.823.2%54.4%80%91%48.7%45.6%54.8%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.077.7%Not yet published48.8%67.4%62.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.7Not yet published54.5%70.2%86.4%42.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.078.7%78.8%48.9%70.2%58.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Sonnet 4.63%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.050.1%71.1%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202578.8%33.6%20.1%41.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.080%73.3%40.9%35.8%56.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Claude Opus 4.6Not yet publishedNot yet published66%88.4%39.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published78%75.4%47%59.9%37.2%
Claude Opus 4.5Not yet publishedNot yet published34.4%86%30.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published77.3%74%46.6%57.5%59%
Claude Haiku 4.5Not yet published42.2%66.7%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202571.2%10.4%3.2%Not yet published74.3%58.6%18%24.7%50.5%
Claude Sonnet 4.5Not yet published45.7%23.9%82.3%17.8%14.1%Not yet published72.3%68.7%32.9%31.4%55.3%
GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%55.1%90.9%94.3%46.2%60.2%74.2%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.182.7%84.7%47.6%Not yet published74.2%
GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%54.2%93.7%95.4%52.9%64.9%78%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.183%86%61.8%69.5%82%
GPT-6 Luna13.6%54.6%78.9%90.5%38.5%53.2%48.9%Run by AnthropicOSWorld 2.183.3%79.7%39.6%63.4%Not yet published
GPT-6 Astra59.6%56.5%93.7%95.8%54.7%68.5%75.8%Run by Meta80.7%86.9%61.6%68.2%Not yet published
GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%57.1%89.1%93.5%49.5%60.1%62.7%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084%83.4%69.7%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published72.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%55%86%93.3%42.9%59.6%Not yet published83%80.7%42.3%Not yet published71.2%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%53.6%82.1%91.6%39.5%50.2%Not yet published83.7%78.6%41%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GPT-5.514.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.055.8%85.3%93.5%Run by Artificial Analysis45.8%47.3%49.5%Run by OSWorld teamOSWorld 2.084.3%79.9%63%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published75.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
GPT-5.4Not yet publishedNot yet published78.6%93.3%43.7%Not yet publishedNot yet published82%78.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published73.9%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
gpt-oss-120b14.2%Run by Terminal-Bench (via Epoch AI)Terminal-Bench 2.034%88.9%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202575.8%19.6%0.2%Not yet published52%Not yet published16.8%Reported by OpenAISimpleQA36.3%45.3%
GPT-6 Sol44.4%57.6%89.8%94.3%47.9%61.6%64.4%Reported by OpenAIOSWorld 2.083.7%82.9%54.5%64%Not yet published
GPT-5.3-CodexNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published91.5%Run by Artificial Analysis42.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published83.3%78.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published75.4%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 4 Argon57.6%61.8%86%96.4%57.1%77.5%69.2%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.079.7%Not yet published48.3%87%78.7%
Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%56.6%68.4%95.4%47.8%59.9%59%Reported by GoogleOSWorld 2.081.3%85.6%50.5%86.1%Not yet published
Gemma 4 31BNot yet published45.5%Not yet published85.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond23.6%4.9%Not yet published69.7%73.4%10.4%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified82.3%75.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%58.7%59.6%94.4%47%35.4%Not yet published82%82.4%54.9%59.9%71.4%
Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.053.4%58.9%94.1%40.8%53%83%Reported by GoogleOSWorld-Verified80%83.2%66.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified87.2%Not yet published
DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%55.9%71.2%93.2%43.3%66.6%69.3%Run by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.182.7%80.6%39.6%Not yet published74.9%
DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%51%64.6%91.7%41%56.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published45.2%72%Not yet published
Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%60.8%Not yet published94.2%Reported by Moonshot AI52.5%73.3%79.6%Reported by Moonshot AIOSWorld 2.186.3%83.9%48.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Kimi K317.2%59.5%72.2%93.1%46.9%58.3%Not yet published88.7%80.5%50.6%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified65.9%Not yet published
Kimi K2.7 Code1%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.047.8%54%87.9%35%24.5%Not yet published79.3%Not yet published36.5%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published63.1%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Mistral Large 424.7%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.0Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published57.8%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published26%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mistral Medium 3.50%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.040.2%Not yet published74.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond13.8%6.3%Not yet published69.3%64.9%23%70.5%68.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Grok 4.728.8%57.4%53%92.7%43.1%65.6%Not yet published76.7%Not yet published42.7%64.1%Not yet published
Grok 4.617.2%56.5%66%93.2%42.9%66.7%Not yet published80.3%Not yet published48.9%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified83.6%Not yet published
Grok 4.58.6%55%57.2%93.4%42.7%57.9%Not yet published79.3%80.4%48.3%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA Verified93.1%Not yet published
MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%53.4%Not yet publishedNot yet published48%72.5%61.7%Reported by MiniMaxOSWorld 2.079.7%79.1%45.1%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Mercury 33%Not yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet publishedNot yet published
GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%51.6%55.8%90.2%39.9%60.4%59.1%Reported by Z.aiOSWorld 2.080%86%Run by Vals.aiMMMU-Pro28.2%65.4%Not yet published
GLM-5.338.9%59%68.8%90.9%42.3%62.2%Not yet published79.7%Not yet published32.3%71.5%Not yet published
GLM-5.21%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.051.2%59.2%Not yet published41.1%28.4%Not yet published78.3%Not yet published34.2%Run by Epoch AISimpleQA VerifiedNot yet published73.3%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Muse Spark Open6.6%58.4%69.8%88.6%43.9%49.7%80.4%Reported by MetaOSWorld-Verified78.3%80.9%42%Not yet published74.2%
Muse Wonder49.5%60.3%82.1%Not yet published50.1%68.1%72.6%Reported by Meta80.7%Not yet published38%42.7%Not yet published
Muse Spark 1.310.6%58.8%74%93.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond48.7%57.9%69.6%83%82%38%25.8%Not yet published
Llama 4 ScoutNot yet published21.3%7.8%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202551.8%3.8%0.2%Not yet published27.7%52.9%Not yet published70.1%39.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Llama 4 MaverickNot yet published31.7%20.6%Run by Epoch AIOTIS Mock AIME 2024-202567%4.9%0.2%Not yet published50%62.1%Not yet published58.3%43%Run by Artificial AnalysisIFBench
Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.046.6%Not yet published90.5%Run by Artificial AnalysisGPQA Diamond33.9%48.2%84.3%Reported by AlibabaOSWorld-Verified82%76.3%17.3%Not yet published79.5%Reported by AlibabaIFBench
Qwen3.8 Max38.9%52.1%65.6%92.3%43.1%56.2%Not yet published80.3%82.8%29.5%65.3%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%60.9%Not yet publishedNot yet published49.4%58.6%82%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified86.3%Not yet published34.8%66.5%Not yet published
MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%51.3%Not yet publishedNot yet published35.1%64.1%80.8%Reported by XiaomiOSWorld-Verified74.3%73.1%27.2%66.9%Not yet published
Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Run by Artificial AnalysisTerminal-Bench 4.056.8%Not yet publishedNot yet published43.5%67.5%Not yet published82.3%Not yet published26.5%Not yet publishedNot yet published
Step 5 Preview31.8%58.9%Not yet published93.5%Reported by StepFunGPQA Diamond46.5%51%Not yet published88.3%76.4%36.4%59.7%Not yet published

Agentic codingTerminal-Bench 4.0

  1. Claude Opus 5.565.2%
  2. Claude Sonnet 5.564.1%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro63.6%
  4. GPT-6 Astra59.6%
  5. Claude Fable 5.158.1%
  6. Gemini 4 Argon57.6%
  7. GPT-6.1 Sol55.1%
  8. Claude Opus 553.5%
  9. GPT-6.1 Terra49.5%
  10. Muse Wonder49.5%
  11. GPT-6 Sol44.4%
  12. Claude Fable 541.4%
  13. GLM-5.338.9%
  14. Qwen3.8 Max38.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Sol37.9%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash37.4%
  17. Claude Haiku 5.536.4%
  18. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash31.8%
  19. Step 5 Preview31.8%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Pro31.3%
  21. Grok 4.728.8%
  22. MiniMax M3.1 Flash25.3%
  23. MiMo-V2.6-Flash24.2%
  24. Claude Opus 4.823.2%
  25. GPT-5.6 Terra22.7%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash19.7%
  27. Kimi K317.2%
  28. Grok 4.617.2%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro14.1%
  30. GPT-6 Luna13.6%
  31. GPT-5.6 Luna11.6%
  32. Claude Sonnet 510.6%
  33. Muse Spark 1.310.6%
  34. Grok 4.58.6%
  35. Muse Spark Open6.6%
  36. Mercury 33%
  37. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview2.5%
  38. Ling 3.1 Flash32.8%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  39. Mistral Large 424.7%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  40. GPT-5.514.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  41. gpt-oss-120b14.2%Terminal-Bench's run, Terminal-Bench 2.0
  42. Gemini 3.6 Flash7.1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  43. Qwen3.8 27B5.6%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.63%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code1%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  46. GLM-5.21%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0
  47. Mistral Medium 3.50%Artificial Analysis's run, Terminal-Bench 4.0

The other models in the grid have no result on Terminal-Bench 4.0 yet.

CodeSciCode

  1. Claude Opus 5.566.9%
  2. Claude Fable 5.163.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon61.8%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.561%
  5. Claude Fable 561%
  6. MiMo-V2.6-Pro60.9%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro60.8%
  8. Muse Wonder60.3%
  9. Kimi K359.5%
  10. GLM-5.359%
  11. Step 5 Preview58.9%
  12. Muse Spark 1.358.8%
  13. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview58.7%
  14. Muse Spark Open58.4%
  15. GPT-6 Sol57.6%
  16. Grok 4.757.4%
  17. GPT-5.6 Sol57.1%
  18. Ling 3.1 Flash56.8%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash56.6%
  20. GPT-6 Astra56.5%
  21. Grok 4.656.5%
  22. Claude Opus 556.4%
  23. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash55.9%
  24. GPT-5.555.8%
  25. GPT-6.1 Terra55.1%
  26. Claude Haiku 5.555%
  27. GPT-5.6 Terra55%
  28. Grok 4.555%
  29. GPT-6 Luna54.6%
  30. Claude Opus 4.754.5%
  31. Claude Opus 4.854.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 554.3%
  33. GPT-6.1 Sol54.2%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna53.6%
  35. Gemini 3.6 Flash53.4%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash53.4%
  37. Qwen3.8 Max52.1%
  38. GLM-5.3-Flash51.6%
  39. MiMo-V2.6-Flash51.3%
  40. GLM-5.251.2%
  41. DeepSeek V4 Pro51%
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.650.1%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code47.8%
  44. Qwen3.8 27B46.6%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.545.7%
  46. Gemma 4 31B45.5%
  47. Claude Haiku 4.542.2%
  48. Mistral Medium 3.540.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b34%
  50. Llama 4 Maverick31.7%
  51. Llama 4 Scout21.3%

The other models in the grid have no result on SciCode yet.

MathFrontierMath Tiers 1-3

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol93.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra93.7%
  3. Claude Opus 5.591.2%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra90.9%
  5. Claude Fable 5.190.2%
  6. GPT-6 Sol89.8%
  7. GPT-5.6 Sol89.1%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.588.8%
  9. Claude Fable 587%
  10. GPT-5.6 Terra86%
  11. Gemini 4 Argon86%
  12. Claude Opus 585.6%
  13. GPT-5.585.3%
  14. GPT-5.6 Luna82.1%
  15. Muse Wonder82.1%
  16. Claude Opus 4.880%
  17. GPT-6 Luna78.9%
  18. GPT-5.478.6%
  19. Claude Haiku 5.575.1%
  20. Muse Spark 1.374%
  21. Kimi K372.2%
  22. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash71.2%
  23. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  24. Muse Spark Open69.8%
  25. GLM-5.368.8%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash68.4%
  27. Claude Opus 4.666%
  28. Grok 4.666%
  29. Claude Sonnet 565.6%
  30. Qwen3.8 Max65.6%
  31. DeepSeek V4 Pro64.6%
  32. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.6%
  33. GLM-5.259.2%
  34. Gemini 3.6 Flash58.9%
  35. Grok 4.557.2%
  36. GLM-5.3-Flash55.8%
  37. Kimi K2.7 Code54%
  38. Grok 4.753%
  39. Claude Opus 4.534.4%
  40. Claude Sonnet 4.523.9%
  41. gpt-oss-120b88.9%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  42. Claude Sonnet 4.671.1%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  43. Claude Haiku 4.566.7%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  44. Llama 4 Maverick20.6%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025
  45. Llama 4 Scout7.8%Epoch AI's run, OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025

The other models in the grid have no result on FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 yet.

ScienceGPQA Diamond

  1. Gemini 4 Argon96.4%
  2. GPT-6 Astra95.8%
  3. Claude Sonnet 5.595.6%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol95.4%
  5. Gemini 3.8 Flash95.4%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview94.4%
  7. GPT-6.1 Terra94.3%
  8. GPT-6 Sol94.3%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash94.1%
  10. Claude Opus 593.9%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol93.5%
  12. Grok 4.593.4%
  13. GPT-5.6 Terra93.3%
  14. GPT-5.493.3%
  15. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash93.2%
  16. Grok 4.693.2%
  17. Kimi K393.1%
  18. Grok 4.792.7%
  19. Qwen3.8 Max92.3%
  20. DeepSeek V4 Pro91.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Luna91.6%
  22. Claude Opus 4.891%
  23. GLM-5.390.9%
  24. Claude Opus 5.590.6%
  25. GPT-6 Luna90.5%
  26. GLM-5.3-Flash90.2%
  27. Claude Haiku 5.589.6%
  28. Muse Spark Open88.6%
  29. Claude Opus 4.688.4%
  30. Kimi K2.7 Code87.9%
  31. Claude Opus 4.786.4%
  32. Claude Opus 4.586%
  33. Claude Fable 585.9%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.582.3%
  35. Claude Sonnet 580.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.678.8%
  37. gpt-oss-120b75.8%
  38. Claude Haiku 4.571.2%
  39. Llama 4 Maverick67%
  40. Llama 4 Scout51.8%
  41. Kimi K3.1 Pro94.2%Moonshot AI's own figure
  42. GPT-5.593.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  43. Muse Spark 1.393.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  44. Step 5 Preview93.5%StepFun's own figure, GPQA Diamond
  45. Claude Fable 5.193.4%Vals.ai's run
  46. GPT-5.3-Codex91.5%Artificial Analysis's run
  47. Qwen3.8 27B90.5%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  48. Gemma 4 31B85.7%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond
  49. Mistral Medium 3.574.8%Artificial Analysis's run, GPQA Diamond

The other models in the grid have no result on GPQA Diamond yet.

Hard reasoningHumanity's Last Exam

  1. Claude Opus 5.561.4%
  2. Claude Fable 5.159.1%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon57.1%
  4. Claude Fable 555.5%
  5. Claude Sonnet 5.555%
  6. Claude Opus 554.9%
  7. GPT-6 Astra54.7%
  8. GPT-6.1 Sol52.9%
  9. Kimi K3.1 Pro52.5%
  10. Muse Wonder50.1%
  11. GPT-5.6 Sol49.5%
  12. MiMo-V2.6-Pro49.4%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.7%
  14. Muse Spark 1.348.7%
  15. MiniMax M3.1 Flash48%
  16. GPT-6 Sol47.9%
  17. Gemini 3.8 Flash47.8%
  18. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview47%
  19. Kimi K346.9%
  20. Step 5 Preview46.5%
  21. GPT-6.1 Terra46.2%
  22. GPT-5.545.8%
  23. Claude Haiku 5.544.4%
  24. Muse Spark Open43.9%
  25. GPT-5.443.7%
  26. Ling 3.1 Flash43.5%
  27. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash43.3%
  28. Grok 4.743.1%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max43.1%
  30. GPT-5.6 Terra42.9%
  31. Grok 4.642.9%
  32. Grok 4.542.7%
  33. GPT-5.3-Codex42.5%
  34. Claude Opus 4.742.3%
  35. GLM-5.342.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 541.3%
  37. GLM-5.241.1%
  38. DeepSeek V4 Pro41%
  39. Gemini 3.6 Flash40.8%
  40. Claude Opus 4.639.9%
  41. GLM-5.3-Flash39.9%
  42. GPT-5.6 Luna39.5%
  43. GPT-6 Luna38.5%
  44. MiMo-V2.6-Flash35.1%
  45. Kimi K2.7 Code35%
  46. Qwen3.8 27B33.9%
  47. Claude Sonnet 4.633.6%
  48. Claude Opus 4.530.1%
  49. Gemma 4 31B23.6%
  50. gpt-oss-120b19.6%
  51. Claude Sonnet 4.517.8%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.513.8%
  53. Claude Haiku 4.510.4%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick4.9%
  55. Llama 4 Scout3.8%

The other models in the grid have no result on Humanity's Last Exam yet.

Tool useAutomationBench-AA

  1. Gemini 4 Argon77.5%
  2. Kimi K3.1 Pro73.3%
  3. MiniMax M3.1 Flash72.5%
  4. Claude Sonnet 5.571.8%
  5. Claude Opus 5.569.5%
  6. GPT-6 Astra68.5%
  7. Muse Wonder68.1%
  8. Ling 3.1 Flash67.5%
  9. Grok 4.666.7%
  10. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash66.6%
  11. Grok 4.765.6%
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol64.9%
  13. MiMo-V2.6-Flash64.1%
  14. GLM-5.362.2%
  15. GPT-6 Sol61.6%
  16. GLM-5.3-Flash60.4%
  17. GPT-6.1 Terra60.2%
  18. GPT-5.6 Sol60.1%
  19. Gemini 3.8 Flash59.9%
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra59.6%
  21. Claude Fable 5.159.4%
  22. MiMo-V2.6-Pro58.6%
  23. Kimi K358.3%
  24. Grok 4.557.9%
  25. Muse Spark 1.357.9%
  26. Mistral Large 457.8%
  27. DeepSeek V4 Pro56.7%
  28. Claude Opus 556.6%
  29. Qwen3.8 Max56.2%
  30. Claude Fable 554.1%
  31. GPT-6 Luna53.2%
  32. Gemini 3.6 Flash53%
  33. Step 5 Preview51%
  34. GPT-5.6 Luna50.2%
  35. Muse Spark Open49.7%
  36. Qwen3.8 27B48.2%
  37. GPT-5.547.3%
  38. Claude Opus 4.845.6%
  39. Claude Sonnet 536.5%
  40. Claude Haiku 5.535.4%
  41. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview35.4%
  42. GLM-5.228.4%
  43. Kimi K2.7 Code24.5%
  44. Claude Sonnet 4.620.1%
  45. Claude Sonnet 4.514.1%
  46. Mistral Medium 3.56.3%
  47. Gemma 4 31B4.9%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.53.2%
  49. gpt-oss-120b0.2%
  50. Llama 4 Scout0.2%
  51. Llama 4 Maverick0.2%

The other models in the grid have no result on AutomationBench-AA yet.

Computer useOSWorld 2.1

  1. Claude Opus 577.7%
  2. Muse Spark 1.369.6%
  3. Qwen3.8 27B84.3%Alibaba's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  4. Gemini 3.6 Flash83%Google's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  5. MiMo-V2.6-Pro82%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  6. Claude Opus 5.581.8%Anthropic's own figure
  7. MiMo-V2.6-Flash80.8%Xiaomi's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  8. Claude Fable 5.180.7%Anthropic's own figure
  9. Muse Spark Open80.4%Meta's own figure, OSWorld-Verified
  10. Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%Anthropic's own figure
  11. Kimi K3.1 Pro79.6%Moonshot AI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  12. GPT-6.1 Sol78%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  13. GPT-6 Astra75.8%Meta's run
  14. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  15. Muse Wonder72.6%Meta's own figure
  16. Claude Haiku 5.572.4%Anthropic's own figure, OSWorld 2.1
  17. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash69.3%Moonshot AI's run, OSWorld 2.1
  18. Gemini 4 Argon69.2%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  19. GPT-6 Sol64.4%OpenAI's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  20. GPT-5.6 Sol62.7%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash61.7%MiniMax's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  22. GLM-5.3-Flash59.1%Z.ai's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  23. Gemini 3.8 Flash59%Google's own figure, OSWorld 2.0
  24. Claude Sonnet 557%Anthropic's own figure
  25. Claude Opus 4.854.8%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  26. GPT-5.549.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  27. Claude Opus 4.748.9%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0
  28. GPT-6 Luna48.9%Anthropic's run, OSWorld 2.1
  29. Claude Sonnet 4.641.5%OSWorld team's run, OSWorld 2.0

The other models in the grid have no result on OSWorld 2.1 yet.

Long contextAA-LCR v1.1

  1. Kimi K388.7%
  2. Step 5 Preview88.3%
  3. Kimi K3.1 Pro86.3%
  4. MiMo-V2.6-Pro86.3%
  5. Claude Fable 5.185.3%
  6. Claude Opus 5.584.7%
  7. GPT-5.584.3%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol84%
  9. GPT-5.6 Luna83.7%
  10. GPT-6 Sol83.7%
  11. GPT-6 Luna83.3%
  12. GPT-5.3-Codex83.3%
  13. GPT-6.1 Sol83%
  14. GPT-5.6 Terra83%
  15. Muse Spark 1.383%
  16. Claude Haiku 5.582.7%
  17. Claude Sonnet 5.582.7%
  18. GPT-6.1 Terra82.7%
  19. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash82.7%
  20. Claude Fable 582.3%
  21. Ling 3.1 Flash82.3%
  22. Claude Sonnet 582%
  23. GPT-5.482%
  24. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82%
  25. Qwen3.8 27B82%
  26. Gemini 3.8 Flash81.3%
  27. GPT-6 Astra80.7%
  28. Muse Wonder80.7%
  29. DeepSeek V4 Pro80.3%
  30. Grok 4.680.3%
  31. Qwen3.8 Max80.3%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.680%
  33. Gemini 3.6 Flash80%
  34. GLM-5.3-Flash80%
  35. Gemini 4 Argon79.7%
  36. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.7%
  37. GLM-5.379.7%
  38. Claude Opus 579.3%
  39. Kimi K2.7 Code79.3%
  40. Grok 4.579.3%
  41. Claude Opus 4.778.7%
  42. GLM-5.278.3%
  43. Muse Spark Open78.3%
  44. Claude Opus 4.678%
  45. Claude Opus 4.877.7%
  46. Claude Opus 4.577.3%
  47. Grok 4.776.7%
  48. Claude Haiku 4.574.3%
  49. MiMo-V2.6-Flash74.3%
  50. Claude Sonnet 4.572.3%
  51. Gemma 4 31B69.7%
  52. Mistral Medium 3.569.3%
  53. gpt-oss-120b52%
  54. Llama 4 Maverick50%
  55. Llama 4 Scout27.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-LCR v1.1 yet.

MultimodalMMMU-Pro

  1. Claude Opus 5.587.7%
  2. GPT-6 Astra86.9%
  3. GPT-6.1 Sol86%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash85.6%
  5. Claude Opus 584.7%
  6. GPT-6.1 Terra84.7%
  7. Kimi K3.1 Pro83.9%
  8. GPT-5.6 Sol83.4%
  9. Gemini 3.6 Flash83.2%
  10. GPT-6 Sol82.9%
  11. Qwen3.8 Max82.8%
  12. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview82.4%
  13. Muse Spark 1.382%
  14. Muse Spark Open80.9%
  15. GPT-5.6 Terra80.7%
  16. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash80.6%
  17. Kimi K380.5%
  18. Grok 4.580.4%
  19. GPT-5.579.9%
  20. GPT-6 Luna79.7%
  21. MiniMax M3.1 Flash79.1%
  22. Claude Opus 4.778.8%
  23. GPT-5.6 Luna78.6%
  24. GPT-5.3-Codex78.5%
  25. GPT-5.478.4%
  26. Claude Sonnet 577.3%
  27. Step 5 Preview76.4%
  28. Qwen3.8 27B76.3%
  29. Claude Opus 4.675.4%
  30. Claude Opus 4.574%
  31. Gemma 4 31B73.4%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.673.3%
  33. MiMo-V2.6-Flash73.1%
  34. Claude Sonnet 4.568.7%
  35. Mistral Medium 3.564.9%
  36. Llama 4 Maverick62.1%
  37. Claude Haiku 4.558.6%
  38. Llama 4 Scout52.9%
  39. Claude Fable 5.186.3%Moonshot AI's run
  40. GLM-5.3-Flash86%Vals.ai's run, MMMU-Pro

The other models in the grid have no result on MMMU-Pro yet.

FactualityAA-Omniscience Accuracy

  1. Claude Fable 5.168.4%
  2. Claude Opus 5.565.5%
  3. Claude Fable 565.4%
  4. GPT-6.1 Sol61.8%
  5. GPT-6 Astra61.6%
  6. Claude Opus 560.9%
  7. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview54.9%
  8. GPT-6 Sol54.5%
  9. Claude Sonnet 5.551.5%
  10. Gemini 3.8 Flash50.5%
  11. Claude Opus 4.748.9%
  12. Kimi K3.1 Pro48.9%
  13. Claude Opus 4.848.8%
  14. Gemini 4 Argon48.3%
  15. GPT-6.1 Terra47.6%
  16. Claude Opus 4.647%
  17. Claude Opus 4.546.6%
  18. DeepSeek V4 Pro45.2%
  19. MiniMax M3.1 Flash45.1%
  20. Grok 4.742.7%
  21. GPT-5.6 Terra42.3%
  22. Muse Spark Open42%
  23. Claude Sonnet 4.640.9%
  24. Claude Sonnet 540.1%
  25. GPT-6 Luna39.6%
  26. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash39.6%
  27. Muse Wonder38%
  28. Muse Spark 1.338%
  29. Step 5 Preview36.4%
  30. MiMo-V2.6-Pro34.8%
  31. Claude Haiku 5.534.7%
  32. Claude Sonnet 4.532.9%
  33. GLM-5.332.3%
  34. Qwen3.8 Max29.5%
  35. GLM-5.3-Flash28.2%
  36. MiMo-V2.6-Flash27.2%
  37. Ling 3.1 Flash26.5%
  38. Mistral Large 426%
  39. Mistral Medium 3.523%
  40. Claude Haiku 4.518%
  41. Qwen3.8 27B17.3%
  42. GPT-5.6 Sol69.7%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  43. Gemini 3.6 Flash66.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  44. GPT-5.563%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  45. Kimi K350.6%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  46. Grok 4.648.9%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  47. Grok 4.548.3%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  48. GPT-5.6 Luna41%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  49. Kimi K2.7 Code36.5%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  50. GLM-5.234.2%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified
  51. gpt-oss-120b16.8%OpenAI's own figure, SimpleQA
  52. Gemma 4 31B10.4%Epoch AI's run, SimpleQA Verified

The other models in the grid have no result on AA-Omniscience Accuracy yet.

Answers in fullSpeechMap

  1. Grok 4.593.1%
  2. Gemini 3.6 Flash87.2%
  3. Gemini 4 Argon87%
  4. Gemini 3.8 Flash86.1%
  5. Grok 4.683.6%
  6. Claude Opus 5.582.8%
  7. Gemma 4 31B82.3%
  8. Claude Sonnet 5.581.6%
  9. Claude Haiku 5.578.8%
  10. Claude Opus 573.7%
  11. Claude Fable 5.172.4%
  12. DeepSeek V4 Pro72%
  13. GLM-5.371.5%
  14. Mistral Medium 3.570.5%
  15. Claude Opus 4.770.2%
  16. Llama 4 Scout70.1%
  17. GPT-6.1 Sol69.5%
  18. GPT-6 Astra68.2%
  19. Claude Opus 4.867.4%
  20. MiMo-V2.6-Flash66.9%
  21. MiMo-V2.6-Pro66.5%
  22. Kimi K365.9%
  23. GLM-5.3-Flash65.4%
  24. Qwen3.8 Max65.3%
  25. Claude Fable 564.8%
  26. Grok 4.764.1%
  27. GPT-6 Sol64%
  28. GPT-6 Luna63.4%
  29. Claude Opus 4.659.9%
  30. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview59.9%
  31. Step 5 Preview59.7%
  32. Llama 4 Maverick58.3%
  33. Claude Opus 4.557.5%
  34. Muse Wonder42.7%
  35. gpt-oss-120b36.3%
  36. Claude Sonnet 4.635.8%
  37. Claude Sonnet 4.531.4%
  38. Muse Spark 1.325.8%
  39. Claude Haiku 4.524.7%

The other models in the grid have no result on SpeechMap yet.

Instruction followingMultiChallenge

  1. GPT-6.1 Sol82%
  2. Gemini 4 Argon78.7%
  3. DeepSeek V4.1 Flash74.9%
  4. GPT-6.1 Terra74.2%
  5. Muse Spark Open74.2%
  6. Gemini 3.1 Pro Preview71.4%
  7. Claude Haiku 5.567.7%
  8. Claude Opus 4.559%
  9. Claude Sonnet 4.555.3%
  10. Claude Haiku 4.550.5%
  11. gpt-oss-120b45.3%
  12. Claude Opus 4.637.2%
  13. Qwen3.8 27B79.5%Alibaba's own figure, IFBench
  14. GPT-5.575.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  15. Gemma 4 31B75.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  16. GPT-5.3-Codex75.4%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  17. GPT-5.473.9%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  18. GLM-5.273.3%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  19. GPT-5.6 Sol72.7%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  20. GPT-5.6 Terra71.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  21. Mistral Medium 3.568.8%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  22. Claude Fable 563.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  23. Kimi K2.7 Code63.1%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  24. Claude Opus 4.862.2%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  25. Claude Opus 4.758.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  26. Claude Sonnet 4.656.6%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  27. Llama 4 Maverick43%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench
  28. Llama 4 Scout39.5%Artificial Analysis's run, IFBench

The other models in the grid have no result on MultiChallenge yet.

Releases

Every Claude Haiku release we track, newest first.

  1. Claude Haiku 5.5Anthropic's small model for high-volume, latency-sensitive tasks such as classification, extraction, and routing. API model claude-haiku-5-5, 1M-token context.CurrentOct 7, 2026
  2. Claude Haiku 4.5An earlier Claude Haiku release, listed by Anthropic as a legacy model that is still available.LegacyOct 15, 2025

What practitioners report

Strongest on Speed, weakest on Reliability.

Each figure is the share of accounts naming Claude Haiku 5.5 that speak well of it on that axis. An axis is scored once praise and concerns are both on record from at least five accounts by three authors. An account from the maker, a company that sells or serves the model, or the maker's expert program is listed and counts toward no figure.

Share of practitioner accounts favorable to Claude Haiku 5.5 on each of seven axes, with the accounts behind each figure
AxisFavorableAccounts
Quality and reasoningWhether its answers and code are right on the author's own task: reasoning, accuracy, instruction following, and consistency.73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors
Tool use and structured outputWhether it calls tools correctly, returns valid structured output, and keeps agent loops on track.67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors
Long contextHow it holds up over long documents, large codebases, long sessions, and many images or PDFs.29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors
Developer experienceHow it is to build with: prompting, steering, effort settings, and support across SDKs and providers.25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors
CostWhat the work costs: price per task, token use, and what caching and batch save.69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors
SpeedResponse time, time to first token, and throughput.74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors
ReliabilityWhether requests keep succeeding: overloaded errors, outages, rate limits, and changes that broke what worked.20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors
Every model on these seven axes
Share of accounts favorable on each axis for Claude Haiku 5.5 and every other model GILD has accounts for
AxisClaude Haiku 5.5Claude Sonnet 5.5Claude Opus 5.5Claude Fable 5.1Claude Opus 5Claude Sonnet 5Claude Fable 5Claude Opus 4.8Claude Opus 4.7Claude Sonnet 4.6Claude Opus 4.6Claude Opus 4.5Claude Haiku 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.5GPT-6.1 TerraGPT-6.1 SolGPT-6 LunaGPT-6 AstraGPT-5.6 SolGPT-5.6 TerraGPT-5.6 LunaGPT-5.5GPT-5.4gpt-oss-120bGPT-6 SolGPT-5.3-CodexGemini 4 ArgonGemini 3.8 FlashGemma 4 31BGemini 3.1 Pro PreviewGemini 3.6 FlashDeepSeek V4.1 FlashDeepSeek V4 ProKimi K3.1 ProKimi K3Kimi K2.7 CodeMistral Large 4Mistral Medium 3.5Grok 4.7Grok 4.6Grok 4.5MiniMax M3.1 FlashMercury 3GLM-5.3-FlashGLM-5.3GLM-5.2Muse Spark OpenMuse WonderMuse Spark 1.3Llama 4 ScoutLlama 4 MaverickQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 MaxMiMo-V2.6-ProMiMo-V2.6-FlashLing 3.1 FlashStep 5 Preview
Quality and reasoning73%19 favorable, 7 not, 26 authors64%14 favorable, 8 not, 22 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors54%15 favorable, 13 not, 28 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors56%9 favorable, 7 not, 16 authors68%13 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors68%17 favorable, 8 not, 25 authors57%12 favorable, 9 not, 21 authors67%12 favorable, 6 not, 18 authors70%19 favorable, 8 not, 27 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 24 authors69%11 favorable, 5 not, 16 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 22 authors55%16 favorable, 13 not, 29 authors44%12 favorable, 15 not, 26 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors58%22 favorable, 16 not, 38 authors31%10 favorable, 22 not, 32 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%22 favorable, 13 not, 35 authors56%27 favorable, 21 not, 45 authors80%24 favorable, 6 not, 28 authors56%20 favorable, 16 not, 36 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors61%25 favorable, 16 not, 40 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors59%20 favorable, 14 not, 32 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors58%11 favorable, 8 not, 18 authors36%5 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors43%16 favorable, 21 not, 36 authors86%6 favorable, 1 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors62%13 favorable, 8 not, 21 authors86%18 favorable, 3 not, 21 authors67%14 favorable, 7 not, 21 authors76%47 favorable, 15 not, 61 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors44%8 favorable, 10 not, 17 authors71%24 favorable, 10 not, 34 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors
Tool use and structured output67%6 favorable, 3 not, 9 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors30%3 favorable, 7 not, 10 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors33%4 favorable, 8 not, 12 authors70%7 favorable, 3 not, 10 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors62%8 favorable, 5 not, 13 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet27%4 favorable, 11 not, 15 authors56%5 favorable, 4 not, 9 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors47%7 favorable, 8 not, 15 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors54%7 favorable, 6 not, 12 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author59%10 favorable, 7 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Long context29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 10 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors67%4 favorable, 2 not, 6 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 6 authors60%6 favorable, 4 not, 10 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authors64%7 favorable, 4 not, 11 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authors40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors50%4 favorable, 4 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNo accounts yet25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors44%7 favorable, 9 not, 16 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author58%7 favorable, 5 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yet40%2 favorable, 3 not, 5 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Developer experience25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors38%5 favorable, 8 not, 13 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 14 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 19 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 14 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors67%8 favorable, 4 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authors50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authors25%2 favorable, 6 not, 8 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yetNo accounts yet14%1 favorable, 6 not, 7 authors25%3 favorable, 9 not, 12 authorsNo accounts yet33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors40%8 favorable, 12 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yet35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authorsNo accounts yet9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%2 favorable, 14 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authors25%5 favorable, 15 not, 20 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authors11%1 favorable, 8 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors33%5 favorable, 10 not, 15 authorsNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 6 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetNo accounts yet
Cost69%20 favorable, 9 not, 29 authors45%10 favorable, 12 not, 22 authors56%15 favorable, 12 not, 27 authors20%4 favorable, 16 not, 20 authors43%3 favorable, 4 not, 7 authors39%7 favorable, 11 not, 17 authors8%1 favorable, 11 not, 12 authors40%6 favorable, 9 not, 14 authors50%7 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors33%7 favorable, 14 not, 20 authors53%8 favorable, 7 not, 15 authors29%4 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authors80%8 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors79%22 favorable, 6 not, 26 authors29%7 favorable, 17 not, 23 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author50%3 favorable, 3 not, 6 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors55%12 favorable, 10 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors35%7 favorable, 13 not, 20 authors58%14 favorable, 10 not, 23 authorsOnly praise on record7 favorable, 0 not, 7 authors50%8 favorable, 8 not, 16 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author66%25 favorable, 13 not, 37 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors40%10 favorable, 15 not, 25 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authors27%3 favorable, 8 not, 11 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 8 not, 8 authors19%5 favorable, 21 not, 26 authors20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly praise on record4 favorable, 0 not, 4 authors80%12 favorable, 3 not, 15 authors50%6 favorable, 6 not, 12 authors76%16 favorable, 5 not, 21 authors35%8 favorable, 15 not, 23 authors71%5 favorable, 2 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 2 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly praise on record3 favorable, 0 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author
Speed74%14 favorable, 5 not, 19 authors88%14 favorable, 2 not, 16 authors46%6 favorable, 7 not, 13 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors31%4 favorable, 9 not, 13 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 8 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors36%4 favorable, 7 not, 11 authors73%8 favorable, 3 not, 11 authors78%7 favorable, 2 not, 9 authors75%6 favorable, 2 not, 8 authors83%5 favorable, 1 not, 5 authors37%7 favorable, 12 not, 19 authors45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors41%7 favorable, 10 not, 17 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors80%4 favorable, 1 not, 5 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet85%23 favorable, 4 not, 27 authors57%4 favorable, 3 not, 7 authorsOnly praise on record1 favorable, 0 not, 1 author45%5 favorable, 6 not, 11 authors61%19 favorable, 12 not, 31 authors53%10 favorable, 9 not, 17 authors35%6 favorable, 11 not, 16 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors2 favorable, 1 not, 3 authors68%21 favorable, 10 not, 30 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author21%4 favorable, 15 not, 19 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yet21%3 favorable, 11 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authors29%5 favorable, 12 not, 17 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 2 not, 3 authorsOnly praise on record2 favorable, 0 not, 2 authors44%4 favorable, 5 not, 9 authors65%13 favorable, 7 not, 20 authors33%3 favorable, 6 not, 9 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors3 favorable, 1 not, 4 authorsNo accounts yet33%7 favorable, 14 not, 21 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
Reliability20%1 favorable, 4 not, 5 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors9%1 favorable, 10 not, 11 authors13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authors63%5 favorable, 3 not, 7 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authors17%2 favorable, 10 not, 12 authors18%2 favorable, 9 not, 11 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authors20%3 favorable, 12 not, 15 authors38%6 favorable, 10 not, 16 authors29%2 favorable, 5 not, 7 authors40%4 favorable, 6 not, 10 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author13%1 favorable, 7 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%2 favorable, 12 not, 14 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors17%1 favorable, 5 not, 6 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 3 not, 3 authors5%1 favorable, 18 not, 19 authors15%3 favorable, 17 not, 20 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 5 not, 5 authors14%3 favorable, 19 not, 22 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author42%5 favorable, 7 not, 12 authorsNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors8%1 favorable, 12 not, 13 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 1 not, 2 authors38%3 favorable, 5 not, 8 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authors22%2 favorable, 7 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yet60%3 favorable, 2 not, 5 authors33%2 favorable, 4 not, 5 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 7 not, 7 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 4 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorNeeds 5 accounts from 3 authors1 favorable, 3 not, 4 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 9 not, 9 authorsOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 authorOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 2 not, 2 authorsNo accounts yetNo accounts yetOnly concerns on record0 favorable, 1 not, 1 author
The 62 accounts behind Claude Haiku 5.5's figures

GILD searched Hacker News, GitHub, Reddit, X, Artificial Analysis, OpenRouter, Vals AI and the web for accounts that name Claude Haiku 5.5.

Quality and reasoning 73%

  • Favorable
    was shocked to find haiku 5.5 can do it

    Comment on Hacker News. tlarkworthy, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on a Rust zstd rewrite benchmark.

  • Unfavorable
    Both evals and Human pairwise tests for our use case are giving Haiku 4.5 first place in pretty much all tests

    Claude Haiku 5.5. HyperL0gi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against Haiku 4.5 in the author's team evals.

  • Favorable
    Overall very good at data analysis - handling all of the straightforward data analytics questions correctly

    Claude Haiku 5.5. chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Plotly's DataAnalyticsBench.

  • Favorable
    I got a good bicycle frame for everything beyond low

    Claude Haiku 5.5. Simon Willison, blogger and creator of the LLM command-line tool, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 via llm-anthropic at low through max thinking effort.

  • Unfavorable
    Results so far are trash.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. d1l, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 tested at work against Haiku 4.5 on latency-sensitive tasks.

  • Unfavorable
    I was curious if this smaller model was good enough for complex UI. It was not.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. jjcm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on image-to-HTML tests for complex UI.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is noticeably smarter than GPT-6 Luna

    Claude Haiku 5.5. dannyw, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against GPT-6 Luna.

  • Favorable
    Twice as expensive as Luna, but also considerably smarter too

    Claude Haiku 5.5. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at xhigh on the author's aibenchy tests.

  • Favorable
    Luna 6 and now Haiku 5.5 are both very competitive if not better on all axes that we care about

    Why isn't the industry freaking out about DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. _jayhack_, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for non-coding knowledge work at the author's employer.

  • Unfavorable
    haiku 5.5, sonnet 5.5, and this latest deepseek 1017 as worker agents running claude code... and deepseek won

    DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash-1017. johnnyApplePRNG, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 17, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as a Claude Code worker agent against Sonnet 5.5 and DeepSeek 1017.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is equally fast and more intelligent than 2.5 composer

    Post on X by gokul_i. Gokul, software engineer and ex-Google GDE for web, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against Composer 2.5.

  • Favorable
    Now that Haiku 5.5 is actually a good model, I have a really good agent to help me send emails

    Post on X by leodev. Leo, founder of Slashy, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Haiku 5.5 running the email agent in Slashy.

  • Favorable
    got P0 outages right in 80/80

    feat(triage): run TriageAgent on Claude Haiku 5.5. sidreddy88, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 running TriageAgent on 114 held-out incident cases.

  • Favorable
    Claude Haiku 5.5 got all 20 analytics questions right.

    Claude Haiku 5.5 Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, data analytics software company (DataAnalyticsBench), self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 in Plotly Studio Embedded on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 4.5 just was not good enough to push that idea far. Haiku 5.5 is.

    Opus 5.5 Took Fable's Job. Haiku 5.5 Proved Me Wrong.. Pawel Jozefiak, author of the Digital Thoughts Substack who runs an agent on Claude models daily, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as the subagent model under Opus 5.5 at medium effort.

  • Favorable
    Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) is amongst the leading models in intelligence

    Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) on Anthropic's API.

  • Favorable
    Leading small-class model performance

    Anthropic has released Claude Haiku 5.5. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 across effort settings on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is a good agentic coding model now!

    Property-based testing with Claude. Tom Larkworthy, Staff Engineer, Taktile Engineering, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 writing a Rust Zstd compressor and decompressor from the format specification.

  • Favorable
    Haiku at its default matches Sonnet at its default, for about half the money.

    Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 or Opus 5.5 for coding: what the cheap model is actually worth. Anand Das, Co-founder and CTO of Bito, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at medium and high effort in Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark.

  • Favorable
    It actually worked quite well to begin with. Very impressed

    Haiku 5.5 is very good; here's why I don't use it. dcidino, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on a Pro account for a database project.

  • Favorable
    Haiku alone passed everything.

    Does delegating save Claude quota? I measured 6 setups on 28 real tasks: Haiku alone passed every check for 93% less, handing work to cheaper models cost more. scomage, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 alone and as a subagent in Claude Code on 28 coding tasks.

  • Favorable
    Despite running on the cheaper plan, Haiku won on everything: price, speed and output quality.

    The cheapest Claude plan running Haiku beat Z.ai's Pro plan running GLM 5.3 Flash. The "generous Z.ai quota" is a myth.. Necessary_Spring_425, Reddit user on r/ZaiGLM, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 Max on a Claude Pro subscription porting the DOS game Digger to HTML5.

  • Favorable
    Fast and surprisingly intelligent

    Samsung TV privacy issues. nekitamo, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 in Claude Code via OpenRouter on a crackme reverse-engineering benchmark.

  • Favorable
    Blind bake-off: Haiku 9.2 vs Gemini 7.3 (6 scenarios).

    llm: switch the DM model to Haiku 5.5 , audit + plan. Garblesnarff, owner of infinite-realms-app, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter as the game's DM model in a 6-scenario blind bake-off.

  • Unfavorable
    GPT 6 Luna crushes it on data labeling and summarization tasks.

    Haiku 5.5 is very good; here's why I don't use it. Blackhat165, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for coding and API tasks, in a thread on Haiku 5.5.

  • Favorable
    It takes #3 of 110 on Vibe Code Bench (90.44%), behind only Gemini 4 Argon (91.91%) and Claude Sonnet 5.5 (92.39%)

    Claude Haiku 5.5 Benchmarks, Cost and Capabilities | Vals AI. Vals AI, independent model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 at max compute effort across the Vals benchmark suite.

  • Unfavorable
    Missed suspect files, or reported a path that doesn't exist.

    eval(multi-agent): Haiku 5.5 fails as the retrieval-role default against sonnet (low). kyle-sexton, maintainer of melodic-software/claude-code-plugins, self-described, Oct 11, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at low effort via claude -p on 44 extraction and test-parsing items, 264 calls.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 had the best median error (1.8%)

    Newer and Cheaper isn't always better: 4 cheap LLMs compete on calorie estimation and JSON workout building for my fitness app. RefactorFitness, Reddit user on r/LLMDevs building a fitness app, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 on calorie estimation and JSON workout generation for a fitness app.

  • Unfavorable
    If I had followed Haiku, I would have deleted half of a correct post

    I tested Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 as subagents on 6 real tasks. emarkosov, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at high and xhigh effort as a Claude Code subagent on 6 real tasks.

Tool use and structured output 67%

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 calls the tool every time

    feat(triage): run TriageAgent on Claude Haiku 5.5. sidreddy88, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 running TriageAgent on 114 held-out incident cases.

  • Favorable
    The model works each one out on its own, exploring the schema, writing queries and checking the results.

    Claude Haiku 5.5 Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, data analytics software company (DataAnalyticsBench), self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 in Plotly Studio Embedded on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Favorable
    Highly capable at agentic knowledge work

    Anthropic has released Claude Haiku 5.5. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 across effort settings on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Favorable
    returns the typed response on us. Opus 5, Opus 5.5, Sonnet 5, Sonnet 5.5 and Haiku 5.5

    fix(aws): restore structured output for Claude 5 on Bedrock. JonZeolla, langchain-aws contributor, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Amazon Bedrock with native structured output through Converse.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku 5.5 fails more tool calls than GPT-4o

    Post on X by AdamHoltererer. Adam Holter, X user, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Haiku 5.5 tool calls against GPT-4o.

  • Favorable
    CI is green against the new models.

    test(conformance): move fixtures to the latest models. weeco, contributor to redpanda-data/ai-sdk-go, self-described, Oct 21, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on the Anthropic API and Bedrock in the ai-sdk-go conformance suite.

  • Favorable
    Schema-valid rate: Haiku 6/6 clean; Gemini 3/6 with violations

    llm: switch the DM model to Haiku 5.5 , audit + plan. Garblesnarff, owner of infinite-realms-app, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter as the game's DM model in a 6-scenario blind bake-off.

  • Unfavorable
    It can't follow output specifications like JSON or selecting from a list.

    Haiku 5.5 is very good; here's why I don't use it. Blackhat165, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for coding and API tasks, in a thread on Haiku 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku couldn't open a league's official rulebook PDF, so it used last season's rules instead

    I tested Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 as subagents on 6 real tasks. emarkosov, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at high and xhigh effort as a Claude Code subagent on 6 real tasks.

  • Favorable
    Haiku got all 120 calculation results right at low effort

    I benchmarked Haiku 5.5 against models costing 20x more on math problems. Hoddmachine, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI who builds Tafla, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at default and low effort in Tafla, writing formulas for a calculation engine, 1,200 turns.

Long context 29%

Developer experience 25%

Cost 69%

  • Unfavorable
    the 5x price increase beyond 100k is painful

    Claude Haiku 5.5. Topfi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 throughput on OpenRouter at launch.

  • Favorable
    9x cheaper than Haiku 4.5 and 2 letter grades better

    Claude Haiku 5.5. chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Plotly's DataAnalyticsBench.

  • Unfavorable
    so there's a hidden price increase there

    Claude Haiku 5.5. Simon Willison, blogger and creator of the LLM command-line tool, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 via llm-anthropic at low through max thinking effort.

  • Unfavorable
    Over that it jumps to $0.50/$2.50!! THAT IS 400% MORE!!!

    Post on X by Gabriele Bolognese. Gabriele Bolognese, backend developer and founder of FlashFX, self-described, Oct 12, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on the Claude API with big prompts.

  • Favorable
    Considering the price, no model comes close to being as good as this.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on the Pac-Man Bench.

  • Unfavorable
    Luna comes out a fair amount cheaper due to more efficient tokenization and less outputs

    Claude Haiku 5.5. Farmadupe, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against GPT-6 Luna on classification work, batch and synchronous.

  • Favorable
    You can get the same performance for half the cost from Luna or Haiku 5.5 now

    Why isn't the industry freaking out about DeepSeek 4.1 Flash?. criley2, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against DeepSeek v4.1 Flash on cost.

  • Unfavorable
    Not only did it come in significantly cheaper even than Haiku

    DeepSeek-v4.1-Flash-1017. johnnyApplePRNG, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 17, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as a Claude Code worker agent against Sonnet 5.5 and DeepSeek 1017.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is decent, cheap, and fast.

    Ask HN: Best value/money AI coding plan bundle?. A_D_E_P_T, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for grunt work under Opus 5.5 on a Claude Max 20x plan.

  • Favorable
    the value is very good for e.g. DeepSeek 4.1 Flash (not sure if they're serving 1017 yet), GLM 5.3 Flash, Qwen3.8 Flash and Claude Haiku 5.5

    Kimi K3.1 Pro and K3.1 Pro Highspeed. ZiLxxi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 through OpenCode Go.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku 5.5 becomes 5x more expensive past 100k context

    Mercury 3: Diffusion at scale. 2001zhaozhao, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 19, 2026. Haiku 5.5 pricing beyond 100k context against Mercury 3.

  • Unfavorable
    The cost per task from Artificial Analysis is roughly 3x higher at every reasoning effort level for Haiku than Luna

    Claude Haiku 5.5. RussianCow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Artificial Analysis and OpenRouter figures.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is a monster for how cheap it is

    Post on X by jonclegg77. Jon Clegg, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Haiku 5.5 against Opus 5.5 at OpenRouter retail prices.

  • Favorable
    Shakes out to 25% the cost of raw dogging Opus 5.5

    Post on X by socialarb. socialarb, X user, self-described, Oct 25, 2026. Haiku 5.5 with the Opus advisor against Opus 5.5 alone.

  • Favorable
    The skills stopped routing to Sonnet 5.5 because Opus 5.5 and Haiku 5.5 give more intelligence per dollar.

    feat(skills): route long-context Claude work to Sonnet 5.5. PedroNavHur, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as the default subagent model in the author's skills.

  • Favorable
    cost per accepted result $0.0006 vs $0.0071 (0.09x)

    feat(triage): run TriageAgent on Claude Haiku 5.5. sidreddy88, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 running TriageAgent on 114 held-out incident cases.

  • Favorable
    most of the volume, written to explicit rules, at ~1/20 of the price

    Coach on two models: Sonnet 5.5 for judgement, Haiku 5.5 for short messages. omerdweck, GitHub user, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. claude-haiku-5-5 for daily summaries and short coaching messages.

  • Favorable
    it's almost 9x cheaper ($3.27 to $0.38 per run)

    Claude Haiku 5.5 Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, data analytics software company (DataAnalyticsBench), self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 in Plotly Studio Embedded on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Unfavorable
    Luna cost about 29% less.

    Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna: 256 jobs in Ask Buoy. the Buoy team, makers of the Buoy debugging tool, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 at default settings in Ask Buoy against GPT-6 Luna, 256 jobs.

  • Favorable
    Keep its context small and it stays absurdly cheap.

    Opus 5.5 Took Fable's Job. Haiku 5.5 Proved Me Wrong.. Pawel Jozefiak, author of the Digital Thoughts Substack who runs an agent on Claude models daily, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as the subagent model under Opus 5.5 at medium effort.

  • Favorable
    well priced when comparing to other models of similar price

    Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) on Anthropic's API.

  • Unfavorable
    Heavy token use compared to GPT-6 Luna: Haiku 5.5 (max) uses ~162k output tokens per Intelligence Index task, ~3x GPT-6 Luna

    Anthropic has released Claude Haiku 5.5. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 across effort settings on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index.

  • Favorable
    I was blown away that Haiku can now solve it, and at that price: about $1 per run, against $5 to $8 for Opus at medium and high effort.

    Property-based testing with Claude. Tom Larkworthy, Staff Engineer, Taktile Engineering, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 writing a Rust Zstd compressor and decompressor from the format specification.

  • Favorable
    For quick one-off asks, Haiku at high effort is the best value we have ever measured on this benchmark

    Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 or Opus 5.5 for coding: what the cheap model is actually worth. Anand Das, Co-founder and CTO of Bito, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at medium and high effort in Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark.

  • Favorable
    It was 86-91% cheaper than Sonnet on every batch.

    Does delegating save Claude quota? I measured 6 setups on 28 real tasks: Haiku alone passed every check for 93% less, handing work to cheaper models cost more. scomage, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 alone and as a subagent in Claude Code on 28 coding tasks.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku is the "cheap" model and still fit fewer tasks than Sonnet

    How many real coding tasks fit in one 5-hour window on the $20 plans? I measured it: Sonnet ~33, Haiku ~20, Codex ~18, Opus ~6. Sufficient-Storage87, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at default settings on Claude Pro, an 8-file WeasyPrint feature.

  • Favorable
    After 3 hours, Haiku had a playable game on 33% of its 5h quota.

    The cheapest Claude plan running Haiku beat Z.ai's Pro plan running GLM 5.3 Flash. The "generous Z.ai quota" is a myth.. Necessary_Spring_425, Reddit user on r/ZaiGLM, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 Max on a Claude Pro subscription porting the DOS game Digger to HTML5.

  • Favorable
    Haiku costs 62% less per turn.

    llm: switch the DM model to Haiku 5.5 , audit + plan. Garblesnarff, owner of infinite-realms-app, self-described, Oct 14, 2026. anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 via OpenRouter as the game's DM model in a 6-scenario blind bake-off.

  • Favorable
    Prompt caching fixed that: warm calls dropped from ~$0.0046 to ~$0.001.

    Newer and Cheaper isn't always better: 4 cheap LLMs compete on calorie estimation and JSON workout building for my fitness app. RefactorFitness, Reddit user on r/LLMDevs building a fitness app, self-described, Oct 8, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 on calorie estimation and JSON workout generation for a fitness app.

  • Favorable
    Same quality, so Haiku wins on price

    I tested Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 as subagents on 6 real tasks. emarkosov, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at high and xhigh effort as a Claude Code subagent on 6 real tasks.

  • Favorable
    The pricier models cost roughly 6–12x Haiku per question.

    I benchmarked Haiku 5.5 against models costing 20x more on math problems. Hoddmachine, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI who builds Tafla, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at default and low effort in Tafla, writing formulas for a calculation engine, 1,200 turns.

Speed 74%

  • Favorable
    roughly twice the throughput of Luna and far lower latency (up to 2sec depending on provider) is impressive

    Claude Haiku 5.5. Topfi, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 throughput on OpenRouter at launch.

  • Favorable
    It's also now the fastest model (using the default speeds, not trying any of the other models "Fast" mode) to complete the exam

    Claude Haiku 5.5. chriddyp, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Plotly's DataAnalyticsBench.

  • Unfavorable
    Prompt leakage even. And it's slower.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. d1l, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 tested at work against Haiku 4.5 on latency-sensitive tasks.

  • Favorable
    Very fast though, and likely best used for small subagent tasks

    Claude Haiku 5.5. jjcm, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on image-to-HTML tests for complex UI.

  • Unfavorable
    However, it did take an extremely long time.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. thefourthchime, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on the Pac-Man Bench.

  • Favorable
    It is also really fast.

    Claude Haiku 5.5. XCSme, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at xhigh on the author's aibenchy tests.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is decent, cheap, and fast.

    Ask HN: Best value/money AI coding plan bundle?. A_D_E_P_T, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 20, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for grunt work under Opus 5.5 on a Claude Max 20x plan.

  • Favorable
    the real reason to use Haiku is that it's faster than all of these models

    Claude Haiku 5.5. RussianCow, Hacker News commenter, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Artificial Analysis and OpenRouter figures.

  • Favorable
    I swapped in Haiku 5.5 and latency dropped to 3 seconds.

    Post on X by jason4l5k. Gotspidercat (jason4l5k), X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Haiku 5.5 in a Home Assistant voice control setup.

  • Favorable
    that model is about as capable as Claude Haiku 5.5 but 20 times as slow

    Post on X by dlexc. Dominic Chambers, X user, self-described, Oct 24, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 against a local Qwen 3.8 Flash Next.

  • Favorable
    It's also the fastest model on the board, at a median of 14 seconds per question

    Claude Haiku 5.5 Benchmark Results for Data Analysis. Plotly, data analytics software company (DataAnalyticsBench), self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 in Plotly Studio Embedded on Plotly's 43-question data analytics exam.

  • Favorable
    1.3 s sooner first answer with Haiku

    Claude Haiku 5.5 vs GPT-6 Luna: 256 jobs in Ask Buoy. the Buoy team, makers of the Buoy debugging tool, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 at default settings in Ask Buoy against GPT-6 Luna, 256 jobs.

  • Favorable
    Haiku 5.5 is cheap, fast, and good

    Opus 5.5 Took Fable's Job. Haiku 5.5 Proved Me Wrong.. Pawel Jozefiak, author of the Digital Thoughts Substack who runs an agent on Claude models daily, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as the subagent model under Opus 5.5 at medium effort.

  • Favorable
    At 234 tokens per second, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) is notably fast

    Claude Haiku 5.5 (max) - Intelligence, Performance & Price Analysis. Artificial Analysis, independent AI model benchmarking, self-described, Oct 26, 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 (Max) on Anthropic's API.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku needs more requests than the bigger models to do the same job, so at matched quality it's slower

    Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 or Opus 5.5 for coding: what the cheap model is actually worth. Anand Das, Co-founder and CTO of Bito, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at medium and high effort in Claude Code on Bito's agentic coding benchmark.

  • Favorable
    ~2.8× faster for 5.5 in this small paired run

    Add judge-only replay for Haiku 5.5 comparison. AbhitejJohn, collaborator on dotnet/skills, self-described, Oct 12, 2026. Haiku 5.5 as an evaluation judge replayed on 333 saved trials.

  • Unfavorable
    Haiku 5.5 needs thinking disabled to get close to Luna, at 4.26 s vs 3.13 s p50 for a current-toll turn

    Add model routing with outage fallback between Luna 6 and Haiku 5.5. rhprasad0, owner of nova-toll-budget-agent, self-described, Oct 7, 2026. Haiku 5.5 on Bedrock against GPT-6 Luna for TollChat turns.

  • Favorable
    the speed is nice though, i'll give it that

    Haiku 5.5 is very good; here's why I don't use it. Easy_Air_1584, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 22, 2026. Haiku 5.5 for quick one-off tasks, in a thread on Haiku 5.5.

  • Unfavorable
    So Haiku at xhigh is half the price of Opus but twice as slow

    I tested Haiku 5.5, Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 as subagents on 6 real tasks. emarkosov, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at high and xhigh effort as a Claude Code subagent on 6 real tasks.

  • Favorable
    Haiku had the lowest median and p90

    I benchmarked Haiku 5.5 against models costing 20x more on math problems. Hoddmachine, Reddit user on r/ClaudeAI who builds Tafla, self-described, Oct 9, 2026. Haiku 5.5 at default and low effort in Tafla, writing formulas for a calculation engine, 1,200 turns.

Reliability 20%