Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) vs Qwen3.8-Flash-Next
Which is better for the money: Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) by Anthropic or Qwen3.8-Flash-Next by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-26.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next scores 10.3 points higher (39.8 vs 29.5) but costs 11× as much to run the benchmark ($363 vs $34.3; mid-range vs budget cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.8-Flash-Next when you need intelligence above 29.5, and Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) when 29.5 is enough.
| Metric | Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 29.5 | 39.8 | +34.9% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 34.9% more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $34.31 | $362.72 | +957.2% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 11× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 11.45s | 49.76s | +334.6% Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is 334.6% 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 (Low): 34.9% more intelligence, 957.2% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 334.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (Low) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6 Luna (Medium) scores 29.90 for $31.2.
- 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 (Low)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-low/qwen3-8-flash-next · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/claude-haiku-5-5-low/qwen3-8-flash-next?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill