Compare / Qwen3-32B vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Qwen3-32B vs Claude Haiku 4.5

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 31 results on 5 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-32B Released 28 Apr 2025 · $0.14 in · $0.40 out
AnthropicClaude Haiku 4.5 Released 15 Oct 2025 · $1.00 in · $5.00 out
Qwen3-32B wins 51 too close to callClaude Haiku 4.5 wins 25

Of the 31 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Anthropic, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5? The short answer

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 16.9 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 9.8 times less per token.

  • Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $2.00 per million tokens, 9.8 times less.
  • Claude Haiku 4.5 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 16.9 against 8.6.
  • Claude Haiku 4.5 is newer: released 15 Oct 2025, against 28 Apr 2025 for Qwen3-32B.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-32B does better for sticking to the facts; Claude Haiku 4.5 for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

8.6
Intelligence Index
16.9
$0.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$2.00
131,072
Context window, tokens
200,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-32BClaude Haiku 4.5
Price per million tokens$0.14 in · $0.40 out$1.00 in · $5.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.21$2.00
Cheapest host, blended$0.13 (DeepInfra, FP8)$2.00 (Amazon Bedrock)
Cached input, per million–$0.10 cached input
Intelligence Index8.616.9
Spring Prompt overall–7
Output speed, tokens a second–97
Context window131,072 tokens200,000 tokens
Released28 Apr 202515 Oct 2025 (newer)
WeightsOpenClosed
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Product listingsTurning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live not measured 19 of 20
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is not measured 15 of 19
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled not measured 8 of 8
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending not measured 18 of 19
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 113 of 164 91 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 148 of 198 127 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 139 of 188 87 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 22 of 152 117 of 152
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess) not measured 17 of 23

From our research

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-32BClaude Haiku 4.5
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 195 · 121 of 387 measured 1,347 1,414
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 203 · 109 of 380 measured 1,340 1,420
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 205 · 112 of 385 measured 1,304 1,388
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 188 · 116 of 243 measured 8.6thinking reasoning 16.9thinking reasoning
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 167 · 163 of 231 measured 66.8%thinking reasoning 67.2%thinking reasoning
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 168 · 149 of 242 measured 7.4%thinking reasoning 10.4%thinking reasoning
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 24 · 6 of 81 measured 48.7%bfcl fc 68.7%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 37 · 4 of 81 measured 82.4%bfcl prompt 95.3%bfcl prompt
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 21 · 6 of 81 measured 26.7%bfcl fc 54.4%bfcl fc
UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results
Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 134 · 72 of 230 measured 33.0no reasoning 52.2no reasoning
Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 99 · 17 of 230 measured 19.0%no reasoning 6.0%no reasoning
Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 175 · 22 of 230 measured 0.32no reasoning 0.39thinking reasoning
Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results
Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 24 · 58 of 104 measured 5.9% 9.8%
Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 17 · 50 of 104 measured 99.9% 99.5%
Show all 31 results (17 more)
MeasureQwen3-32BClaude Haiku 4.5
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 159 · 97 of 338 measured 1,398 1,451
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 198 · 101 of 387 measured 1,331 1,415
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 217 · 106 of 386 measured 1,308 1,400
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 9 results
Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 111 · 70 of 130 measured 5.2%thinking reasoning 44.2%thinking reasoning
Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 66 · 66 of 112 measured 0.0%thinking reasoning 0.0%thinking reasoning
τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 102 · 82 of 121 measured 5.4%thinking reasoning 9.3%thinking reasoning
Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 111 · 68 of 131 measured 15.3thinking reasoning 43.9thinking reasoning
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 155 · 92 of 195 measured 36.3%thinking reasoning 54.3%thinking reasoning
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 222 · 82 of 233 measured 0.0%no reasoning 74.3%thinking reasoning
SciCode% of problems, higher is better 91 · 73 of 113 measured 36.0%thinking reasoning 42.2%thinking reasoning
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 169 · 72 of 190 measured 3.0%thinking reasoning 27.3%no reasoning
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 135 · 98 of 193 measured 29.8%thinking reasoning 54.7%thinking reasoning
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 17 · 13 of 81 measured 47.9%bfcl fc 53.6%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 72 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl fc 62.5%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 31 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 86.5%bfcl fc
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 3 · 15 of 81 measured 82.0%bfcl fc 78.7%bfcl fc
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 28 · 2 of 81 measured 26.0%bfcl prompt 83.5%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-32B better than Claude Haiku 4.5?

Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 16.9 against 8.6). Pick Qwen3-32B if cost matters more: it costs 9.8 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3-32B is cheaper: $0.21 against $2.00 per million tokens, 9.8 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5 ranks 91 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 113 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5 ranks 127 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 148 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5 ranks 87 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 139 for Qwen3-32B.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Qwen3-32B ranks 22 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 117 for Claude Haiku 4.5.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-32B or Claude Haiku 4.5?

Claude Haiku 4.5: 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-32B.

Run Qwen3-32B and Claude Haiku 4.5 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us