Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Claude Haiku 4.5
56
o3-mini
55
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Coding
+24.0 difference
Claude Haiku 4.5
o3-mini
$1 / $5
$1.1 / $4.4
N/A
160 t/s
N/A
7.12s
200K
200K
Pick Claude Haiku 4.5 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if you want the cheaper token bill or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Claude Haiku 4.5 finishes one point ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 56 to 55. That is enough to call, but not enough to treat as a blowout. This matchup comes down to a few meaningful edges rather than one model dominating the board.
Claude Haiku 4.5's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 73.3 against 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 49.3%.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.00 input / $5.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for o3-mini. o3-mini is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 56 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 49.3%.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 73.3 versus 49.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.