Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4
Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and Claude Opus 4 side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, and Object Detection.
Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Claude Opus 4 is deprecated and can no longer be run. Details and evals are still available on its model page.
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4: Overview
Claude Haiku 4.5 is Anthropic’s lightweight model in the Claude 4.5 series, released in October 2025 under a proprietary license. Designed for speed and cost efficiency, it delivers near-frontier performance while maintaining Anthropic’s AI Safety Level 2 standard. Haiku 4.5 supports both text and multimodal (text and image) inputs, integrates tool use and extended reasoning, and features a 200,000 token context window, making it adept at handling long or complex workflows. Though the parameter count remains undisclosed, it achieves about 73.3% on SWE-bench Verified, reflecting strong coding and reasoning ability. Haiku 4.5 is ideal for developers and researchers seeking rapid, cost-effective model calls for analysis, coding, or multimodal understanding.
Claude 4 Opus, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the flagship model of the Claude 4 family, built for complex, long-horizon reasoning and advanced coding workflows. It is multimodal, supporting text (including voice), images, and tool use, and operates as a hybrid reasoning model—able to deliver quick answers in fast mode or switch to extended thinking for deeper, multi-step problem solving. With a ~200,000-token context window and a training cutoff around March 2025, it is optimized for handling large documents, long conversations, and sophisticated agentic tasks.
Positioned at the high end of Anthropic’s offerings, Opus 4 achieves state-of-the-art results on coding benchmarks like SWE-Bench (72.5%) and Terminal-Bench (43.2%). It is best suited for research, enterprise automation, and software development at scale. The model is classified at Anthropic’s ASL-3 safety level, denoting advanced oversight and safety features.
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4 Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Claude Opus 4 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Anthropic |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2025 | May 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 200K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.00 | $15.00 |
| Output $/1M | $5.00 | $75.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 58.21% | 56.72% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.15s | 19.74s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 174 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0030 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 66.7%(10/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 88.9%(8/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 0%(0/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 61.57% | |
| Avg Response Time | 2.13s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | |
| Median output tokens | 101 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0012 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 61.6%(61/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 63.3%(19/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 65%(39/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology