Head-to-head

Claude Haiku 4.5 logovsClaude Opus 4.8 logo

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.8: which AI model wins in 2026?

Claude Haiku 4.5 ($5/1M out) and Claude Opus 4.8 ($25/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 5 community votes, Claude Haiku 4.5 leads with 67% approval.

Quick verdict

On Reasoning, pick Claude Opus 4.8: the arena rates it 4.5/5 against 3/5 for Claude Haiku 4.5. On budget, Claude Haiku 4.5 wins: it starts at $5/1M out versus $25/1M out for Claude Opus 4.8.

Line-by-line comparison

From
$5/1M outSingle tier: $1/1M input, $5/1M output; prompt cache reads $0.10/1M (5m writes $1.25/1M) and Batch API cuts 50% ($0.50/$2.50); no long-context surcharge (200K max).
$25/1M outStandard tier $5/$25 per 1M tokens (unchanged from Opus 4.7); fast mode research preview at $10/$50 (vs $30/$150 on Opus 4.7's deprecated fast tier); batch API 50% off at $2.50/$12.50; no long-context surcharge up to 1M tokens; prompt cache reads at $0.50/1M.
Provider
Anthropic
Anthropic
Context window
200K tokens
1M tokens (128K max output)
Input price
$1/1M in
$5/1M in
Output price
$5/1M out
$25/1M out
Modalities
text, vision (input); text output
text, vision (image input up to 2576px, text output)
Open weights
No
No
Crowd score
67%(2)
57%(3)
Arena ratings (1-5)
Reasoning
3.0
4.5
Coding
3.5
5.0
Writing
3.0
5.0
Speed
4.5
3.0
Value
4.0
3.5

Strengths and weaknesses

Claude Haiku 4.5

  • 73.3% on SWE-bench Verified, about 90% of Sonnet 4.5's agentic coding at one third of the price
  • Fast: more than 2x Sonnet 4 speed per Anthropic, with launch customers reporting 4-5x faster than Sonnet 4.5; ~92-110 output tok/s measured by Artificial Analysis
  • Devs report precise, localized code edits that avoid touching irrelevant code, better than GPT-5 mini class in early testing
  • Supports both vision input and extended thinking, rare at this price tier at launch
  • Well suited as worker model in multi-agent setups (Sonnet/Opus plans, parallel Haiku sub-agents execute)
  • Prompt caching reads at $0.10/1M and 50% Batch API discount cut effective cost further
  • $5/1M output is pricey for a small model: Gemini Flash and GPT mini tiers undercut it several-fold on output-heavy tasks
  • 200K context (vs 1M for Sonnet 5/Opus siblings) and 64K max output limit large-codebase and long-output work
  • Mediocre cross-domain reasoning: users report weak results on GPQA, MedQA, MMMU style knowledge tasks
  • Throughput varies widely in practice (82-208 tok/s reported) and quality degrades on long 7-8+ minute agentic sessions
  • Knowledge cutoff (reliable to Feb 2025) is dated by mid-2026 standards

Claude Opus 4.8

  • SWE-Bench Pro 69.2% (vs 64.3% for Opus 4.7) and beats prior Opus models on CursorBench at every effort level; strong real-world reports on large refactors and multi-file bug hunts
  • About 4x less likely than Opus 4.7 to let flaws in its own generated code pass unflagged; big jump on math reasoning (USAMO 2026: 96.7% vs 69.3%)
  • 1M-token context and 128K output at unchanged $5/$25 pricing, with no long-context premium; batch API at 50% off ($2.50/$12.50)
  • Fast mode (research preview) delivers up to 2.5x output speed at $10/$50, 3x cheaper than Opus 4.7's fast tier ($30/$150)
  • Unique API features for agents: mid-conversation system messages that preserve the prompt cache, and Dynamic Workflows spawning parallel subagents in Claude Code
  • 84% on Online-Mind2Web browser automation and record score on Legal Agent Benchmark (first model past 10% all-pass); strong enterprise knowledge work (Box reports 87% vs 77% internally)
  • Turn-by-turn regressions reported: missed obvious instructions in planning docs, answering a narrow slice of the goal, and worse one-shot simple UI generation than 4.7
  • Writing style criticized by heavy users: excessive hedging, over-cautious editing that 'cuts anything bold or funny' (Steve Yegge), and pushback loops even against well-evidenced theses
  • Language-mixing quirk: users report random Chinese, Cyrillic, or Greek insertions in long research threads
  • Visible quality degradation past ~200K tokens in hands-on use despite the advertised 1M window
  • Vending-Bench regression: fell for scam suppliers about 30x more than 4.7 and negotiates worse (a side effect of stricter honesty alignment)

Cast your verdict

One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.

67%crowd score · 2
Claude Opus 4.8$25/1M out
57%crowd score · 3

The arena’s verdict on Claude Haiku 4.5

Pick Haiku 4.5 if you are on the Anthropic stack and need near-Sonnet coding quality at low latency and a third of the price: it is a massive step up from Haiku 3.5 and excels as the worker model in multi-agent pipelines. It remains Anthropic's current small model as of July 2026, so it is the default cheap tier for Claude-based products. Avoid it for deep cross-domain reasoning, very large codebases (200K context cap), or pure cost-per-token shopping, where Gemini Flash and GPT mini tiers are now cheaper, and step up to Sonnet 5 when quality matters more than speed.

The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.8

A drop-in upgrade for Opus 4.7 users: identical API surface and $5/$25 pricing with real gains on long-horizon agentic coding, code review, and enterprise analysis. Choose it if you run Claude Code, multi-file migrations, security audits, or agent pipelines that inspect, act, and verify over many steps. Skip it for quick one-shot UI snippets or prompts tightly tuned to 4.7 behavior, where users report regressions, and pick Sonnet 5 ($3/$15, intro $2/$10 through Aug 2026) if cost matters more than ceiling capability. Writers sensitive to hedging and over-cautious editing may find its style frustrating.

What the crowd says

On Claude Haiku 4.5

Guardian of the Repo

The precise localized edits are the underrated feature. It fixes the line that needs fixing and leaves the rest alone. GPT mini class models keep rewriting half my file.

Champion of Vibes

Haiku 4.5 gives me about 90% of Sonnet agentic coding at a third of the price, and it is fast enough that edit loops feel instant. My default for quick fixes now.

On Claude Opus 4.8

Judge Dreadful

Writing took a hit. It hedges everything and edits any bold or funny line out of my drafts. Also caught it answering a narrow slice of my planning doc and calling it done.

Champion of Vibes

Threw USAMO-level math at it for a lark and it just grinds through. 96.7 vs 69 for 4.7 tracks with what I see. Same $5/$25, 1M context, no excuse not to switch.

Glorius Maximus

Upgraded from 4.7 for a monorepo refactor and the difference is real. It actually flags its own sketchy code instead of shipping it. Multi-file bug hunts feel way less babysat.

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Haiku 4.5 better than Claude Opus 4.8?

The crowd currently sides with Claude Haiku 4.5: 67% recommend it, versus 57% for Claude Opus 4.8 (5 votes). On Reasoning, Claude Opus 4.8 rates higher (4.5/5 vs 3/5). The right pick depends on your use case. The line-by-line comparison on this page breaks down pricing, key specs and arena ratings.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Claude Opus 4.8?

Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper: it starts at $5/1M out, while Claude Opus 4.8 starts at $25/1M out.

How much do Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4.8 cost per 1M tokens?

Claude Haiku 4.5: $1/1M in per 1M input tokens, $5/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Opus 4.8: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens.