Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Grok 4

We ran both models across our 12-test suite and compared scores and ranks from our testing. Wins: Claude Haiku 4.5 wins creative_problem_solving (4 vs 3; Claude rank 9 of 54 vs Grok rank 30), tool_calling (5 vs 4; Claude tied for 1st vs Grok rank 18), and agentic_planning (5 vs 3; Claude tied for 1st vs Grok rank 42). Those translate into better non‑obvious idea generation, function selection and argument accuracy, and goal decomposition/failure recovery in our benchmarks. Grok 4’s single win is constrained_rewriting (4 vs 3; Grok rank 6 of 53 vs Claude rank 31), meaning Grok is measurably better at tight compression and length‑restricted rewriting tasks. The rest are ties: structured_output (4/4), strategic_analysis (5/5), faithfulness (5/5), classification (4/4), long_context (5/5), safety_calibration (2/2), persona_consistency (5/5), and multilingual (5/5). Where scores are tied they generally occupy high ranks (e.g., both tied for 1st on strategic_analysis and long_context), so both models are comparable on reasoning with numbers, long‑context retrieval at 30k+ tokens, faithfulness, and multilingual output in our testing. In short: Haiku leads on planning and tool orchestration; Grok leads on constrained rewriting; many core capabilities are neck‑and‑neck.

Pricing per 1k tokens (mTok) is Claude Haiku 4.5: $1 input / $5 output; Grok 4: $3 input / $15 output. Using a 50/50 input/output token split as an example: per 1M tokens Claude costs $3,000 (500k input = $500, 500k output = $2,500) while Grok costs $9,000 (500k input = $1,500, 500k output = $7,500). At 10M tokens/month those become $30,000 vs $90,000; at 100M tokens/month $300,000 vs $900,000. If your workload is output‑heavy (e.g., 10% input / 90% output) the gap widens toward the output rate difference ($5 vs $15). High‑volume deployments, startups on tight budgets, and consumer‑facing chat apps should care most about this gap; teams that need Grok’s specific strengths may accept the 3× cost increase.

Choose Claude Haiku 4.5 if you need the best price/performance for tool-heavy, agentic, or creative workflows (tool_calling 5 vs 4, agentic_planning 5 vs 3), want lower latency/cost at scale, or prioritize cost-sensitive production chat and automation. Choose Grok 4 if your workload requires better constrained rewriting/compression (constrained_rewriting 4 vs 3), file input support and a slightly larger context window (256k), and you can justify ~3× higher token costs for those specific capabilities.