Compare / Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Particle-1
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Particle-1
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 75 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
AnthropicClaude Haiku 5.5
Particle AIParticle-1
Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 2718 too close to callParticle-1 wins 30
Of the 75 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 5 November 2026 (catalogue release 2026-11-05-44c5fb63d296).
Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1? The short answer
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 33) at about the same price.
- Spring Prompt overall: Claude Haiku 5.5 44, Particle-1 33 (out of 100; how the score works).
- They cost about the same to run: $0.001 and $0.001 per product listing on CatalogBench.
- On our own benchmarks, on the results both models have: Claude Haiku 5.5 does better for product listings; Particle-1 for marketing planning.
Head to head
44
Spring Prompt overall
33
$0.20
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.16
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,048,576
Every fact side by side
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Particle-1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.10 in · $0.50 out | $0.050 in · $0.50 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.20 | $0.16 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.20 (Amazon Bedrock) | – |
| Cost per product listing (CatalogBench) | $0.001 | $0.001 |
| Intelligence Index | 43.4 | – |
| Spring Prompt overall | 44 | 33 |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 240 | – |
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Released | 7 Oct 2026 | – |
| Weights | Closed | Closed |
| Developer based in | the 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
15 of 27
26 of 27
Decks from an analysisTurning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is
14 of 28
15 of 28
User surveysPlanning a user survey and reading its results without being misled
4 of 17
7 of 17
Marketing planningPlanning a year of ad spend without overspending
26 of 28
14 of 28
Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls
23 of 160
not measured
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge
22 of 188
not measured
Speed under pressureGood decisions against a real clock (fast chess)
19 of 31
32 of 32
Their slides, side by side
The same brief for both: Manchester store investment review for Hearthside Coffee, an invented company. First slide of each deck from DeckBench.
From our research
- AI Checkpoint: Sol’s new fast lane 9 Oct 2026
- Claude Haiku 5.5 Is Far Better Than Haiku 4.5 at a Tenth of the Price. GPT-6 Luna Still Beats It at Business Work. 8 Oct 2026
- How to Test AI Hallucinations in Business Content 20 Oct 2026
- Mercury 3 first look: very fast with thinking off, too slow with it on 20 Oct 2026
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.
| Measure | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per productUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 3 of 28 measured | $0.0012 | $0.0012 |
| Reliably publish-ready% of products, higher is better 18 · 26 of 27 measured | 26.8% | 0.0% |
| Reliably publish-ready · sales brief% of products, higher is better 13 · 22 of 27 measured | 10.7% | 0.0% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Cost per deckUS dollars, lower is better 4 · 2 of 28 measured | $0.0091 | $0.0086 |
| Deck ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 14 · 15 of 28 measured | 1,164 | 1,163 |
| Accurate decks% of tasks, higher is better 16 · 19 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 16.7% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Overall scorescore out of 100, higher is better 26 · 14 of 28 measured | 24.1 | 43.3 |
| Audience scorescore out of 100, higher is better 22 · 13 of 28 measured | 48.4 | 65.1 |
| Business scorescore out of 100, higher is better 24 · 13 of 28 measured | 13.5 | 39.0 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 3 results | ||
| Analysis ratingrating, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 4 · 7 of 17 measured | 1,301 | 1,193 |
| Cost per taskUS dollars, lower is better 3 · 1 of 17 measured | $0.0185 | $0.0140 |
| Analysis scorepoints of 100, higher is better 7 · 6 of 17 measured | 88.4 | 88.4 |
Show all 75 results (63 more)
| Measure | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Particle-1 |
|---|---|---|
| CatalogBench measured by Spring Prompt · 26 results | ||
| Channel compliance% of products, higher is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Channel rules broken% of products, lower is better 15 · 15 of 28 measured | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Channel rules broken · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 14 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.6% |
| Conflicts caught% of conflicts, higher is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Content quality% of checks, higher is better 22 · 13 of 28 measured | 95.6% | 97.1% |
| Content quality · sales brief% of checks, higher is better 16 · 19 of 28 measured | 96.3% | 96.1% |
| Decision accuracy% of decisions, higher is better 20 · 13 of 28 measured | 95.6% | 96.8% |
| Failed outputs% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Failed outputs · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Field accuracy% of missing fields, higher is better 26 · 13 of 28 measured | 91.0% | 93.7% |
| Invented values% of filled values, lower is better 8 · 14 of 28 measured | 0.8% | 1.7% |
| Missing UK information% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Missing UK information · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Not findable% of products, lower is better 26 · 1 of 28 measured | 11.9% | 0.0% |
| Not findable · sales brief% of products, lower is better 26 · 1 of 28 measured | 10.7% | 0.0% |
| Publish-ready listings% of products, higher is better 18 · 27 of 28 measured | 47.0% | 0.0% |
| Publish-ready listings · sales brief% of products, higher is better 16 · 26 of 28 measured | 20.2% | 0.0% |
| Time per productseconds, lower is better 13 · 20 of 28 measured | 11.0 | 23.5 |
| Unsupported claims% of products, lower is better 20 · 15 of 28 measured | 32.1% | 19.6% |
| Unsupported claimsclaims per product, lower is better 23 · 16 of 28 measured | 1.20 | 0.71 |
| Unsupported claims · sales briefclaims per product, lower is better 18 · 17 of 28 measured | 2.46 | 2.36 |
| Unsupported claims · sales brief% of products, lower is better 18 · 12 of 28 measured | 70.2% | 49.4% |
| Wrong attributes% of products, lower is better 19 · 19 of 28 measured | 19.6% | 19.6% |
| Wrong attributes · sales brief% of products, lower is better 15 · 14 of 28 measured | 18.5% | 17.9% |
| Wrong category or variant% of products, lower is better 1 · 5 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| Wrong category or variant · sales brief% of products, lower is better 1 · 5 of 28 measured | 0.0% | 1.8% |
| DeckBench measured by Spring Prompt · 14 results | ||
| Caveat dropped% of tasks, lower is better 14 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Clean layout% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 22 of 28 measured | 66.7% | 16.7% |
| Design quality% of the maximum, higher is better 17 · 22 of 28 measured | 61.1% | 54.4% |
| Draft figure quoted% of tasks, lower is better 15 · 21 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 50.0% |
| Findings missing% of tasks, lower is better 20 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other deck was; the win rate counts wins against whichever decks a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 13 · 15 of 28 measured | 62.7% | 51.7% |
| Layout defects% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 22 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 83.3% |
| Misleading metric used% of tasks, lower is better 26 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| Presentable decks% of tasks, higher is better 6 · 13 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Recommendation late or wrong% of tasks, lower is better 16 · 16 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 33.3% |
| Slides needing work% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 8 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 33.3% |
| Time per deckseconds, lower is better 5 · 17 of 28 measured | 62.1 | 154 |
| Unsupported claims% of tasks, lower is better 21 · 1 of 28 measured | 33.3% | 0.0% |
| Unsupported numbers% of tasks, lower is better 24 · 1 of 28 measured | 16.7% | 0.0% |
| ROASBench measured by Spring Prompt · 6 results | ||
| Consistency scorescore out of 100, higher is better 25 · 15 of 28 measured | 10.6 | 27.8 |
| Contribution profitsimulated US dollars, higher is better 24 · 9 of 28 measured | $32,146 | $684,624 |
| Cost of a runUS dollars, lower is better 5 · 3 of 28 measured | $0.0313 | $0.0234 |
| Months over budgetmonths of 12, lower is better 1 · 1 of 28 measured | 0 | 0 |
| Planning scorescore out of 100, higher is better 16 · 25 of 28 measured | 54.8 | 54.3 |
| Return on ad spendprofit per $1 spent, higher is better 24 · 13 of 28 measured | $0.03 | $0.51 |
| SurveyBench measured by Spring Prompt · 17 results | ||
| Head-to-head win rate% of comparisons, higher is betterThe rating weighs each win by how strong the other analysis was; the win rate counts wins against whichever analyses a model happened to meet, so the two can disagree. 4 · 8 of 17 measured | 65.6% | 50.0% |
| Leading or double-barrelled questions% of tasks, lower is better 7 · 3 of 17 measured | 33.3% | 11.1% |
| Mistaken next steps% of tasks, lower is better 6 · 6 of 17 measured | 22.2% | 22.2% |
| Numbers right% of answers, higher is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 100.0% | 100.0% |
| Objectives unanswerable% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 8 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 11.1% |
| Precision ignored% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Research scorepoints of 100, higher is better 6 · 7 of 17 measured | 90.2 | 89.7 |
| Sound research% of tasks, higher is better 7 · 6 of 17 measured | 11.1% | 22.2% |
| Stakeholder's view presumed% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Survey plan scorepoints of 100, higher is better 4 · 6 of 17 measured | 94.5 | 92.6 |
| Survey structure% of tasks, lower is better 8 · 12 of 17 measured | 22.2% | 33.3% |
| Time per taskseconds, lower is better 8 · 13 of 17 measured | 147 | 252 |
| Traps handled% of traps, higher is better 5 · 2 of 17 measured | 94.2% | 95.7% |
| Traps missed% of tasks, lower is better 2 · 3 of 17 measured | 22.2% | 33.3% |
| Unsupported findings% of tasks, lower is better 9 · 7 of 17 measured | 77.8% | 55.6% |
| Wrong numbers% of tasks, lower is better 1 · 1 of 17 measured | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Wrong recommendation% of tasks, lower is better 3 · 3 of 17 measured | 11.1% | 11.1% |
Compare them with other models
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-FlashFastest with similar intelligence
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Claude Opus 5.5Most intelligent available today
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiniMax M3.1 FlashJust above overall
- Claude Haiku 5.5 vs DeepSeek-V4.1-Flash-1017Just below overall
- Particle-1 vs Claude Opus 5.5Highest-scoring overall available today
- Particle-1 vs GLM-5.3 FlashX LegalJust above overall
- Particle-1 vs Mistral Large 4Just below overall
Quick answers
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 better than Particle-1?
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5: it scores higher (Spring Prompt overall 44 against 33) at about the same price.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
They cost about the same to run: $0.001 and $0.001 per product listing on CatalogBench.
Which is better for product listings, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 15 of 27 models on sale for turning a sparse product feed and photos into listings that can go live, against 26 for Particle-1.
Which is better for decks from an analysis, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 14 of 28 models on sale for turning a finished analysis into a deck you could present as it is, against 15 for Particle-1.
Which is better for user surveys, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 4 of 17 models on sale for planning a user survey and reading its results without being misled, against 7 for Particle-1.
Which is better for marketing planning, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Particle-1 ranks 14 of 28 models on sale for planning a year of ad spend without overspending, against 26 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Which is better for speed under pressure, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Claude Haiku 5.5 ranks 19 of 31 models on sale for good decisions against a real clock (fast chess), against 32 for Particle-1.
Which has the bigger context window, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Particle-1?
Particle-1: 1,048,576 tokens, against 1,000,000 for Claude Haiku 5.5.
Run Claude Haiku 5.5 and Particle-1 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.