Claude 3.5 Haiku
Fast + cheap with a huge context — great for RAG and classification.
On this pageJump to a section
Claude 3.5 Haiku Overview at a Glance
Claude 3.5 Haiku is a large language model from Anthropic, first released on 4 November 2024. It is proprietary (closed-weights) and sits in the fast, anthropic, enterprise, and consumer categories of our catalog. Fast + cheap with a huge context — great for RAG and classification. This page covers Claude 3.5 Haiku pricing, benchmarks, API limits, speed, modalities, best use cases, and how it compares with similar models — so you can decide whether it belongs in your stack in 2026.
As a language model, Claude 3.5 Haiku is evaluated on reasoning quality, coding ability, latency, context window size, and dollars-per-million-tokens. The context window is 200k tokens (about 150k words), which determines how much prompt, document, and conversation history you can send in one request. At a typical 3:1 input-to-output mix, the blended API price is about $1.60 per 1M tokens. On our intelligence index it ranks #19 of 22 language models we track with a score of 58/100 (capable mid-tier).
Teams usually shortlist Claude 3.5 Haiku when they need a dependable Anthropic option for production chat, agents, retrieval-augmented generation, or coding copilots. Common fits include rag, classification, and form filling. Reviewers consistently call out 200k context cheap, fast, and reliable on extraction as standout strengths. Trade-offs to weigh include weaker reasoning than sonnet. The sections below break down pricing tables, benchmark charts, token limits, input/output modalities, and head-to-head comparisons so long-tail queries — from “Claude 3.5 Haiku API pricing” to “Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet” — are answered on this page.
If you are migrating from an older Anthropic model or switching labs entirely, treat this page as a decision brief: skim the overview stats, confirm API pricing fits your volume, check whether the context window covers your longest documents, then validate quality on a golden set of prompts. Benchmarks and charts help shortlist; your own evals decide. We refresh catalog numbers periodically (last update 2026-06) so figures stay useful through the year.
- Context window
- 200k tokens
- Max output
- 8k tokens
- Input price
- $0.80 / 1M tokens
- Output price
- $4.00 / 1M tokens
- Time to first token
- 0.5s
- Input modalities
- text
- Output modalities
- text
- License
- Proprietary
- Provider
- Anthropic
- 200k context cheap
- Fast
- Reliable on extraction
- Weaker reasoning than Sonnet
- RAG
- Classification
- Form filling
Claude 3.5 Haiku Pricing
Claude 3.5 Haiku uses token-based API pricing from Anthropic. You pay $0.80 per million input tokens and $4.00 per million output tokens. For planning budgets we quote a blended rate of $1.60 per 1M tokens at a 3:1 input-to-output ratio — the same convention used across our catalog so models are comparable. Output tokens usually dominate cost for chatty or agentic workloads, so watch generation length and system-prompt size.
When estimating production spend, multiply expected monthly tokens by the blended rate, then add a buffer for retries, tool-calling loops, and RAG context. Claude 3.5 Haiku is proprietary, so hosted API pricing (or a cloud marketplace listing) is the primary cost lever; negotiate committed-use discounts once traffic is predictable.
Also compare Claude 3.5 Haiku against cheaper siblings from Anthropic for router patterns: send easy traffic to a mini/flash tier and reserve Claude 3.5 Haiku for hard reasoning. That hybrid design often cuts billable tokens 30–70% without users noticing quality drops on simple turns.
- Input price
- $0.80 / 1M tokens
- Output price
- $4.00 / 1M tokens
- Blended (3:1)
- $1.60 / 1M tokens
Claude 3.5 Haiku Benchmarks
Public benchmark scores help compare Claude 3.5 Haiku with other LLMs on knowledge, graduate-level science, competition math, and coding. Reported figures in our catalog include MMLU 80, MMLU Pro 65, GPQA 41, MATH 69, and HumanEval 85. These are not a substitute for evals on your own prompts, but they are useful for shortlisting.
Our intelligence index (58/100) normalizes those benchmarks into a single capable mid-tier score so you can scan the leaderboard quickly. The performance chart below shows each benchmark against the current catalog leader.
Claude 3.5 Haiku API Pricing
API pricing for Claude 3.5 Haiku is what you pay when calling Anthropic’s developer endpoint (or a marketplace such as Azure, Bedrock, or Vertex when available). Unlike consumer chat apps with flat subscriptions, API bills scale with tokens processed. Cache prompt prefixes where the provider supports it, batch non-interactive jobs, and prefer smaller sibling models for classification or routing when full Claude 3.5 Haiku quality is unnecessary.
To convert catalog numbers into a monthly forecast: estimate average input tokens per request (system prompt + user message + retrieved context), average output tokens, and request volume. Cost ≈ requests × ((inputTokens/1e6) × inputPrice + (outputTokens/1e6) × outputPrice). Our LLM pricing calculator can stress-test scenarios if you need a second opinion against peers.
Always verify live rates on the official docs — our figures are refreshed periodically (last catalog update: 2026-06) and providers change list prices. Official reference: https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/about-claude/models.
Claude 3.5 Haiku Context Window
Claude 3.5 Haiku offers a 200k-token context window — roughly about 150k words of English text. Everything in a single API call counts against that budget: system instructions, chat history, retrieved documents, tool schemas, and the model’s reply. Exceeding the window truncates or errors depending on the provider.
Large windows help with long PDFs, multi-file code reviews, and multi-hour agent traces, but bigger contexts also cost more tokens and can add latency. Prefer retrieval that stuffs only relevant chunks, summarize old turns, and reserve headroom for up to 8k output tokens.
Claude 3.5 Haiku Input / Output Modalities
Claude 3.5 Haiku accepts text as input and produces text as output. Knowing the modality matrix matters when you design pipelines — for example, vision-capable language models can take screenshots or PDFs as images, while pure text models need an OCR or captioning step first.
If you need bidirectional voice, native video understanding, or tool-use with multimodal arguments, confirm support in Anthropic’s API schema rather than assuming parity with the consumer chat app. Modality support also affects pricing: image or audio inputs may be tokenized differently than plain text.
Document which of Claude 3.5 Haiku’s listed modalities you will actually send in production. Turning on unused multimodal features can change tokenizers, rate limits, and safety filters unexpectedly.
- Inputs
- text
- Outputs
- text
Claude 3.5 Haiku Token Limits
Token limits define how much Claude 3.5 Haiku can read and write per request. Total context is capped at 200k tokens. Maximum completion length is 8k tokens — even if context remains, the model stops generating beyond that ceiling unless you continue in a follow-up call. Providers may also enforce organization-level rate limits (RPM/TPM) separate from these per-request caps.
Practical tip: set max_tokens intentionally. Leaving it unbounded wastes budget on verbose answers; setting it too low truncates JSON or code. For structured outputs, prefer schemas/tool calls and keep completions tight.
- Context window
- 200k tokens
- Max output
- 8k tokens
Claude 3.5 Haiku Speed
Speed for Claude 3.5 Haiku is measured two ways: time-to-first-token (how quickly streaming starts) and steady-state tokens per second. Catalog median throughput is about 130 tok/s. Typical TTFT is 500 ms. Reasoning-heavy modes that think before answering will look slower on tok/s even when quality is higher.
Interactive chat wants low TTFT; batch extraction can tolerate higher latency for cheaper regions or providers. If Claude 3.5 Haiku is too slow for your UX, evaluate a “mini/flash/haiku” sibling from the same lab before switching ecosystems.
- Throughput
- 130 tokens/sec
- Time to first token
- 500 ms
- Speed percentile
- Faster than ~68% of tracked LLMs
Claude 3.5 Haiku Performance Charts
The charts on this page visualize Claude 3.5 Haiku against catalog peers. Benchmark bars show academic scores versus the current leader; the similar-models comparison table plots intelligence, speed, and blended price so you can see trade-offs at a glance. Use them to answer “is Claude 3.5 Haiku fast enough?” and “is the quality jump worth the premium?” without opening a spreadsheet.
Benchmark performance vs catalog leaders
Intelligence index vs similar models
Comparison with Similar Models
Choosing an AI model is rarely absolute — it is relative to the next-best option. Claude 3.5 Haiku is most often weighed against Claude 3.5 Sonnet, GPT-5.5 mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash. Compare intelligence (or generation quality), latency, price, license, and modality support. A slightly weaker but much cheaper model can win for high-volume workloads; a pricier frontier model wins when a single mistake is expensive.
Use the links and table below for structured Claude 3.5 Haiku vs alternatives research. We also maintain dedicated head-to-head pages for popular matchups when available. If you are standardizing on Anthropic, check sibling models from the same lab before leaving the ecosystem.
A practical bake-off: pick 20–50 real prompts, score accuracy/style, measure p50/p95 latency, and compute cost at projected volume for Claude 3.5 Haiku and two peers. Ship the winner behind a feature flag so you can reverse the decision without a rewrite.
| Model | Provider | Intelligence | Speed | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude 3.5 Haiku | Anthropic | 58 | 130 t/s | $1.60/1M |
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Anthropic | 71 | 85 t/s | $6.00/1M |
| GPT-5.5 mini | OpenAI | 68 | 180 t/s | $0.44/1M |
| Gemini 2.0 Flash | 64 | 220 t/s | $0.18/1M |
Claude 3.5 Haiku vs popular alternatives
More from Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku Best Use Cases
Best use cases for Claude 3.5 Haiku follow from its strengths, price point, and modality support. Match the model to the job: frontier reasoning for hard planning, fast/cheap tiers for classification, image/video/speech specialists for media pipelines.
Based on catalog notes, Claude 3.5 Haiku is a particularly strong fit for rag, classification, and form filling. Validate with a short bake-off on your real prompts before a full cutover.
Anti-patterns: do not use a frontier-priced model like a generic classifier if a smaller model scores within a point on your eval; do not stuff entire corpora into context when retrieval would be cheaper; and do not skip structured outputs if you plan to parse Claude 3.5 Haiku responses in code.
- RAG
- Classification
- Form filling
Claude 3.5 Haiku Pros & Cons
Every model trades quality, speed, cost, and openness. Here is a concise pros and cons list for Claude 3.5 Haiku drawn from our catalog strengths and weaknesses — pair it with your own evals before committing.
Read pros as “reasons to shortlist” and cons as “risks to mitigate,” not as deal-breakers in isolation. A listed weakness (for example higher price or smaller context) may be irrelevant if your workload is bursty, short-context, or already standardized on Anthropic.
After scanning this list, jump to the comparison table and FAQ for decision support, then lock a trial window with success metrics before replacing a production model with Claude 3.5 Haiku.
- 200k context cheap
- Fast
- Reliable on extraction
- Weaker reasoning than Sonnet
Claude 3.5 Haiku — frequently asked questions
Need help choosing between models?
Compare every option in one sortable table — intelligence, speed and price on a single page.