Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5 Mini
Compare Claude Haiku 4.5 and GPT-5 Mini 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 GPT-5 Mini 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
Models in this comparison
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5 Mini: 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.
GPT-5 Mini, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is a mid-tier variant of the GPT-5 family that balances cost, speed, and capability. It is multimodal, supporting both text and image inputs, and offers a substantial input context window of ~400,000 tokens with output lengths up to ~128,000 tokens. While less powerful than the full GPT-5, it inherits its safety tuning, instruction-following improvements, and multimodal reasoning, making it a practical choice for developers who need large context handling without the expense of premium models.
GPT-5 Mini is optimized for affordability while retaining strong reasoning performance. Benchmarks show it outperforming earlier models such as GPT-4o on many multimodal and medical VQA tasks, though it lags behind GPT-5 on the most complex problems. Ideal use cases include prototyping, scalable content generation, document analysis, and mid-range reasoning tasks where efficiency and context capacity matter more than top-tier accuracy.
Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-5 Mini Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Haiku 4.5 | GPT-5 Mini |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | OpenAI |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Oct 2025 | Aug 2025 |
| Context Window | 200K | 400K |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $1.00 | $0.250 |
| Output $/1M | $5.00 | $2.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | 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% | 73.13% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.15s | 11.72s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | 1.4K |
| Median output tokens | 174 | 143 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0030 | $0.0006 |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 10%(1/10) |
| Object Understanding | 71.4%(10/14) | 85.7%(12/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 52.6%(10/19) | 89.5%(17/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 61.57% | 76.86% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.13s | 4.63s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | 105 |
| Median output tokens | 101 | 209 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0012 | $0.0004 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 61.6%(61/99) | 72.7%(72/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | 50%(5/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 63.3%(19/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 65%(39/60) | 78.3%(47/60) |
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