Claude Haiku 5.5 vs MiniMax M3
Which one, when
Up to 100000 input tokens, claude-haiku-5-5 has lower input and output rates. Above 100000 input tokens, minimax-m3 becomes cheaper on both; it also accepts video and allows much longer responses.
Pricing
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiniMax M3 | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.3 | 0.33× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $1.2 | 0.42× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.01 | $0.06 | 0.17× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | no separate charge | - |
Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.
Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 80 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | - |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit (automatic) |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | not published |
| Minimum cached prefix | 512 tokens | 512 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | MiniMax M3 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-07 | 2026-06-01 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | - |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 524K |
| Thinking parameter | output_config.effort |
|
| Accepted values | output_config.effort
| thinking.type
reasoning_split
|
| Default | medium | adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps |
Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Haiku 5.5 · MiniMax M3
One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model generate a long internal chain of thought before its answer, and those thinking tokens are billed as output tokens, which cost several times more than input tokens. The model often produces many times more output per request than it did without reasoning, so the per-call cost rises even when the visible answer looks about the same length. Because that extra spend scales with every request, the bill roughly doubled, and we can control it by setting reasoning budgets, using reasoning only for tasks that need it, or routing simpler requests to a non-reasoning model.
out 332 tok (+159 thinking) latency 2.9 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 3 sentences
Reasoning models don't just answer — they first generate extensive internal "thinking" tokens to work through the problem step-by-step, and you're billed for all of those tokens even though users never see them. A query that previously cost ~200 tokens may now cost 2,000–10,000 once reasoning is enabled, multiplying per-query spend by roughly 5–50x while the visible output stayed the same size — that's the doubling. The lever is tuning: cap reasoning effort on simple queries, cache the reasoning traces, and reserve the full reasoning model for only your hardest 10–20% of requests, which typically restores 60–80% of the savings.
out 764 tok (+629 thinking) latency 3.5 s
Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts adjacent equal *pairs*, not run *elements*. A run of k equal items produces k−1 matching pairs, so the function returns one less than the true length, and a single-element input produces no pairs at all, so it returns 0 instead of 1. Resetting `cur` to 0 on a mismatch compounds this by starting every run one step behind. The fix starts both `cur` and `best` at 1 (a non-empty list always has a run of at least one element), resets `cur` to 1 on a mismatch, and updates `best` after every element rather than only inside the equal-branch. The empty-list guard keeps the function from returning 1 for `[]`. […]
out 1012 tok (+591 thinking) latency 6.0 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 8/8 cases
The bug is that the loop starts at index 1 and treats `cur` as the number of *equal transitions* rather than the run length, so a run of *k* consecutive equal items is reported as `k − 1`, and a single-element list (where the loop body never executes) returns 0 instead of 1. A correct version tracks the actual run length by seeding `cur = 1` and resetting it to 1 (not 0) on a mismatch: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` Now `[5]` returns `1`, `[1,1,1]` returns `3`, and a run like `[1,2,2,2]` that ends at the last index is correctly captured as `3` because `cur` is updated before `best` is compared on every iteration, including the final one.
out 845 tok (+596 thinking) latency 3.5 s
Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 "
```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": null, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": "Formal guidance withheld pending the Q4 close" } ``` Notes: The text gives revenue as 412 but doesn't state the currency, so I left `revenue_usd_m` as null. Growth is "eleven and change," so 11 is an approximation.
out 725 tok (+572 thinking) latency 4.6 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
```json { "company": null, "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```
out 1002 tok (+955 thinking) latency 3.6 s
Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.
Claude Haiku 5.5 passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
**Introducing Prompt Cache Sync, the newest feature in GatewayOne.** Teams routing requests across OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google have often paid to process the same long system prompts again and again. Now the gateway stores those prompts once and reuses them wherever they appear, regardless of provider. Repeated context is matched by content hash, so cached prefixes return faster and cost less, with no changes to your application code. How much could this save your team? Enable Prompt Cache Sync from the dashboard, and your next billing report will show the difference. Cache entries follow your existing retention settings and can be purged per project at any time. Availability begins this week for all Scale and Enterprise plans worldwide. Start today.
out 2164 tok (+1929 thinking) latency 9.9 s
MiniMax M3 passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question
Introducing PromptCache, our intelligent caching layer for the API gateway. Tired of paying twice for identical requests? The feature stores prompt-response pairs across every connected provider, returning cached results instead of hitting costly endpoints. Deployment requires only a single configuration flag, and semantic similarity detection happens automatically. Latency drops up to 70% on repeated traffic while costs follow the same downward curve. Developers access detailed cache hit metrics, eviction logs, and provider breakdowns through the dashboard. Whether routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or local models, every cached token saves time and money. The cache respects TTL policies, supports manual purging, and encrypts stored content. Available today for Pro and Enterprise tiers—enable PromptCache on existing endpoints and watch inference bills shrink immediately.
out 2808 tok (+2656 thinking) latency 6.0 s
Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.
Switch between them with one line
Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.
from openai import OpenAI
client = OpenAI(
base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
api_key="sk-syn-...",
)
resp = client.chat.completions.create(
model="claude-haiku-5-5",
# model="minimax-m3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)import OpenAI from "openai";
const client = new OpenAI({
baseURL: "https://synthorai.io/v1",
apiKey: "sk-syn-...",
});
const resp = await client.chat.completions.create({
model: "claude-haiku-5-5",
// model: "minimax-m3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
messages: [{ role: "user", content: "Summarize this diff" }],
reasoning_effort: "medium",
});
console.log(resp.choices[0].message.content);curl https://synthorai.io/v1/chat/completions \
-H "Authorization: Bearer sk-syn-..." \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{
"model": "claude-haiku-5-5",
# "model": "minimax-m3", # uncomment this line, comment the one above
"messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "Hello"}],
"reasoning_effort": "medium"
}'package main
import (
"context"
"fmt"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3"
"github.com/openai/openai-go/v3/option"
)
func main() {
client := openai.NewClient(
option.WithBaseURL("https://synthorai.io/v1"),
option.WithAPIKey("sk-syn-..."),
)
resp, _ := client.Chat.Completions.New(context.TODO(), openai.ChatCompletionNewParams{
Model: "claude-haiku-5-5",
// Model: "minimax-m3", // uncomment this line, comment the one above
Messages: []openai.ChatCompletionMessageParamUnion{
openai.UserMessage("Summarize this diff"),
},
ReasoningEffort: openai.ReasoningEffortMedium,
})
fmt.Println(resp.Choices[0].Message.Content)
}import com.openai.client.OpenAIClient;
import com.openai.client.okhttp.OpenAIOkHttpClient;
import com.openai.models.chat.completions.*;
import com.openai.models.ReasoningEffort;
OpenAIClient client = OpenAIOkHttpClient.builder()
.baseUrl("https://synthorai.io/v1")
.apiKey("sk-syn-...")
.build();
ChatCompletion resp = client.chat().completions().create(
ChatCompletionCreateParams.builder()
.model("claude-haiku-5-5")
// .model("minimax-m3") // uncomment this line, comment the one above
.addUserMessage("Summarize this diff")
.reasoningEffort(ReasoningEffort.MEDIUM)
.build());
System.out.println(resp.choices().get(0).message().content().orElse(""));FAQ
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or MiniMax M3?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.1 vs $0.3, 3.0× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.
Can I A/B test Claude Haiku 5.5 against MiniMax M3 without two integrations?
Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.
Do Claude Haiku 5.5 and MiniMax M3 support prompt caching?
Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.