Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-27.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 2.0 points higher (39.8 vs 37.8) but costs 3.9× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $94.1; both mid-range class). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 37.8, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) when 37.8 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 37.8 | 39.8 | +5.3% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 5.3% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $94.07 | $362.72 | +285.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 3.9× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 28.44s | 49.52s | +74.1% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 74.1% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.10 / $0.50 | $0.15 / $0.47 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next vs Claude Haiku 5.5 (High): 5.3% more intelligence, 285.6% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 74.1% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (High) is on today's frontier: nothing is both smarter and cheaper.
- Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Medium) scores 47.80 for $361.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (High)Qwen3.8-Flash-NextToday's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-high/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-high/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill