Claude Haiku 4.5 vs GPT-4o

Summary of our 12-test comparison (scores out of 5, and ranks where available). Claude Haiku 4.5 wins 8 tests, GPT-4o wins none, and 4 tests tie. Detailed walk-through: - Strategic analysis: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 2. Haiku is tied for 1st of 54 models in this test; GPT-4o ranks 44 of 54. This matters for nuanced tradeoff reasoning and numeric decision-making. - Creative problem solving: Haiku 4 vs GPT-4o 3. Haiku ranks 9 of 54 vs GPT-4o rank 30 — better for non-obvious, feasible idea generation. - Tool calling: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 4. Haiku is tied for 1st of 54; GPT-4o ranks 18 of 54. Expect more accurate function selection and argument sequencing from Haiku in our tests. - Faithfulness: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 4. Haiku is tied for 1st of 55; GPT-4o ranks 34 of 55 — Haiku adheres to source material more reliably in our tasks. - Long context: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 4. Haiku tied for 1st of 55; GPT-4o ranks 38 of 55. Practically, Haiku handled 30k+ retrieval accuracy better in our suite; that aligns with Haiku’s larger context window (200,000 vs 128,000). - Safety calibration: Haiku 2 vs GPT-4o 1. Haiku ranks 12 of 55 vs GPT-4o 32 of 55 — both are low relative to other tests, but Haiku was better at refusing harmful prompts while permitting legitimate requests in our evaluation. - Agentic planning: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 4. Haiku tied for 1st of 54; GPT-4o is mid-ranked — Haiku handled goal decomposition and failure recovery better in our scenarios. - Multilingual: Haiku 5 vs GPT-4o 4. Haiku tied for 1st of 55; GPT-4o ranks 36 of 55 — for equivalent non-English quality Haiku performed stronger in our multilingual prompts. - Ties: structured_output 4/4, constrained_rewriting 3/3, classification 4/4, persona_consistency 5/5 — on these tasks both models produced similar results in our tests. External benchmarks (supplementary): GPT-4o posts 31% on SWE-bench Verified (Epoch AI), 53.3% on MATH Level 5 (Epoch AI), and 6.4% on AIME 2025 (Epoch AI) — these external scores are present in the payload and should be treated as supplementary evidence; Claude Haiku 4.5 has no SWE/MATH/AIME external scores in the payload. In short: Haiku outperforms on reasoning, tool usage, context length, faithfulness and multilingual tasks in our testing; GPT-4o does not beat Haiku on any of our 12 internal tests but provides external task scores and a different modality/parameter set.

Per-mTok prices from the payload: Claude Haiku 4.5 charges $1 input / $5 output; GPT-4o charges $2.5 input / $10 output. Interpreting 1 mTok = 1,000 tokens, processing 1M input + 1M output tokens (1,000 mtok each) costs: Claude Haiku 4.5 = $1,000 (input) + $5,000 (output) = $6,000. GPT-4o = $2,500 + $10,000 = $12,500. At scale: 10M in+out tokens → Haiku $60,000 vs GPT-4o $125,000; 100M → Haiku $600,000 vs GPT-4o $1,250,000. Who should care: high-volume customers (10M+ tokens/month), batch processing pipelines, and startups on tight budgets will see large savings with Haiku; small-scale or experimental users (<1M tokens/month) will see smaller absolute savings but still a consistent ~50% price gap (priceRatio = 0.5).

Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 if you need: cost-efficient production at scale (Haiku is ~50% the token cost of GPT-4o), top long-context handling (200k window, max output 64k tokens), best-in-our-tests tool calling, strategic analysis, faithfulness, multilingual output, and agentic planning. Choose GPT-4o if you specifically require OpenAI’s file->text input modality, its particular parameter surface (e.g., logit_bias, web_search_options), or tight integration with OpenAI tooling — but expect roughly double the token bill and lower scores on the majority of our benchmarks.