Head-to-head
Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Haiku 4.5: which AI model wins in 2026?
Claude Opus 4.6 ($25/1M out) and Claude Haiku 4.5 ($5/1M out) are two of the most-used AI models in 2026. Across 2 community votes, Claude Haiku 4.5 leads with 67% approval.
Quick verdict
On Reasoning, pick Claude Opus 4.6: the arena rates it 4/5 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 4.6.
Line-by-line comparison
Strengths and weaknesses
Claude Opus 4.6
- 80.8% SWE-bench Verified (25-trial average) and top Terminal-Bench 2.0 score at launch, the leading agentic coding model of its generation (Feb 2026)
- First Opus with a 1M-token context window: 76% on MRCR v2 8-needle at 1M tokens vs 18.5% for Sonnet 4.5
- Large reasoning jump over Opus 4.5: ARC-AGI-2 68.8% vs 37.6%, +190 Elo on GDPval-AA economic-value tasks (~144 Elo over GPT-5.2)
- Kept Opus 4.5 pricing ($5/$25 per 1M tokens) despite the gains; full 1M context now billed at standard rates, 50% batch discount
- Adaptive thinking plus effort parameter (low/medium/high/max) to trade intelligence, latency and cost per request
- Strong autonomous agent behavior: parallelizes work and needs less handholding than Opus 4.5 (Every.to Vibe Check)
- Slower and more verbose than Opus 4.5; reviewers report the pace 'wavers under load' on long agentic runs (Every.to)
- Writing regressed: in blind tests Every.to's team preferred Opus 4.5's prose, and 4.6 shows more AI-isms like 'X not Y' constructions
- Sometimes makes unexpected changes and 'doesn't always know its own skills', requiring closer supervision than GPT-5.x Codex per reviewers
- Superseded within months by Opus 4.7 and 4.8 at the same $5/$25 price, and fast mode is not available on 4.6 since June 2026 (requests run at standard speed)
- Some devs report benchmark fatigue: day-to-day coding gains over 4.5 are harder to feel than the scores suggest, and SWE-bench itself was flat vs 4.5 (80.8% vs 80.9%)
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
Cast your verdict
One recommendation per tool per gladiator. It reshapes the crowd score everyone sees.
The arena’s verdict on Claude Opus 4.6
A clear upgrade over Opus 4.5 for agentic coding and long-context work at identical pricing, and it held the top agentic coding benchmarks at launch. In mid-2026 however there is little reason to start new projects on it: Opus 4.8 costs the same $5/$25 and outperforms it across the board, so pick 4.6 mainly to pin an already-validated behavior. Writers should avoid it, since blind tests preferred Opus 4.5's prose, and latency-sensitive users should note it is slower than 4.5 with no fast mode option.
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.
What the crowd says
On Claude Opus 4.6
No verdicts yet. Be the first to speak.
On Claude Haiku 4.5
“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.”
“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.”
Keep comparing
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Opus 4.6 better than Claude Haiku 4.5?
The crowd currently sides with Claude Haiku 4.5: 67% recommend it, versus 50% for Claude Opus 4.6 (2 votes). On Reasoning, Claude Opus 4.6 rates higher (4/5 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 Opus 4.6 or Claude Haiku 4.5?
Claude Haiku 4.5 is cheaper: it starts at $5/1M out, while Claude Opus 4.6 starts at $25/1M out.
How much do Claude Opus 4.6 and Claude Haiku 4.5 cost per 1M tokens?
Claude Opus 4.6: $5/1M in per 1M input tokens, $25/1M out per 1M output tokens. Claude Haiku 4.5: $1/1M in per 1M input tokens, $5/1M out per 1M output tokens.