Model comparison

Claude Haiku 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Max

Data verified July 23, 2026

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

Claude Haiku 4.5

Anthropic

56.58/100

Margin

16.3pts

winning →

Qwen3.7 Max

Alibaba

72.84/100

0 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Haiku 4.5 #77 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Max #10 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Max share 2 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Claude Haiku 4.5; 56 to Qwen3.7 Max.

Updated July 23, 2026

Shared results: 2
Claude Haiku 4.5 only: 3
Qwen3.7 Max only: 56
Comparable categories: 2 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Max if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Max is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 72.84 to 56.58. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Max's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 97.1 against 4.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 73.3% to 80.4%.

Qwen3.7 Max 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. Qwen3.7 Max gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude Haiku 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Max
Category	Claude Haiku 4.5	Δ	Qwen3.7 Max
Math	Claude Haiku 4.54.9	Margin→ 92.2	Qwen3.7 Max97.1
Coding	Claude Haiku 4.573.3	Margin→ 4.6	Qwen3.7 Max77.9
Agentic	Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.7 Max69.7
Reasoning	Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.7 Max90.4
Knowledge	Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.7 Max64.2
Multilingual	Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.7 Max87.0
Inst. Following	Claude Haiku 4.5Not measured	MarginNo overlap	Qwen3.7 Max84.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

A · Claude Haiku 4.5B · Qwen3.7 Max

SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Source ↗
A 73.3%B 80.4%
Winner: Qwen3.7 MaxΔ 7.1
SWE-bench Verified: Claude Haiku 4.5 scored 73.3%; Qwen3.7 Max scored 80.4%. Qwen3.7 Max wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metric	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens	Claude Haiku 4.5$1 input / $5 output	Qwen3.7 MaxNot available	A complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per second	Claude Haiku 4.5Not available	Qwen3.7 MaxNot available	A complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first token	Claude Haiku 4.5Not available	Qwen3.7 MaxNot available	A complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokens	Claude Haiku 4.5200K	Qwen3.7 Max1M	Qwen3.7 Max lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic

22 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
JobBenchSource	16.0%	—	Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	—	69.7%	Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource	—	64.3%	Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource	—	1568	Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource	—	65.2%	Not comparable
BFCL v4Source	—	75.0%	Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource	—	76.4%	Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource	—	47.9%	Not comparable
HLE w/ toolsSource	—	53.5%	Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource	—	30.6%	Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource	—	94.7%	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	—	38.7%	Not comparable
GDPval-AASource	—	1273	Not comparable
Gert LabsSource	—	64.27%	Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource	—	18.7%	Not comparable
AA BriefcaseSource	—	908	Not comparable
AA AutomationBenchSource	—	25.6%	Not comparable
AA EnterpriseOps-GymSource	—	45.0%	Not comparable
AA ITBenchSource	—	42.5%	Not comparable
terminalBenchHardSource	—	50.8%	Not comparable
aaTerminalBench21Source	—	74.5%	Not comparable
AA Harvey LABSource	—	83.4%	Not comparable

CodingQwen3.7 Max wins

9 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource	73.3%	80.4%	Qwen3.7 Max leads
SWE-bench ProSource	—	60.6%	Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource	—	78.3%	Not comparable
NL2RepoSource	—	47.2%	Not comparable
SciCodeSource	—	53.5%	Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource	—	91.6%	Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source	—	69.7%	Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource	—	66.0%	Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource	—	48.8%	Not comparable

Reasoning

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
MRCRv2Source	—	90.4%	Not comparable
CritPtSource	—	13.4%	Not comparable
AA-LCRSource	—	69.0%	Not comparable

Knowledge

13 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
GPQASource	—	92.4%	Not comparable
GPQA-DSource	—	92.4%	Not comparable
HLESource	—	41.4%	Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource	—	89.6%	Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource	—	95%	Not comparable
SuperGPQASource	—	73.6%	Not comparable
MMMLUSource	—	90.3%	Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource	—	46.0%	Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource	—	92.3%	Not comparable
AA-HLESource	—	38.1%	Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource	—	14.1%	Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource	—	30.1%	Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource	—	22.9%	Not comparable

MathQwen3.7 Max wins

5 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source	5.903%	—	Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source	2.083%	—	Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source	—	97.1%	Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource	—	90.0%	Not comparable
ApexSource	—	44.5%	Not comparable

Multilingual

5 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
MMLU-ProXSource	—	87%	Not comparable
NOVA-63Source	—	59.0%	Not comparable
INCLUDESource	—	86.2%	Not comparable
MAXIFESource	—	89.2%	Not comparable
PolyMathSource	—	86.5%	Not comparable

Multimodal

1 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
Design Arena WebsiteSource	1152	1293	Qwen3.7 Max leads

Inst. Following

3 benchmarks

Benchmark	Claude Haiku 4.5	Qwen3.7 Max	Result
IFEvalSource	—	94.3%	Not comparable
IFBenchSource	—	79.1%	Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource	—	80.5%	Not comparable

Frequently Asked Questions (3)

Which is better, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 72.84 to 56.58. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 73.3% and 80.4%.

Which is better for coding, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.9 versus 73.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Haiku 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Max?

Qwen3.7 Max has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 97.1 versus 4.9. Claude Haiku 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.