Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Flash
Which one, when
Both are low-cost models with a 1000000-token context and thinking you can switch off, and their prices are close: claude-haiku-5-5 at $0.1 input and $0.5 output, qwen3.8-flash at $0.15 and $0.47. The differences are in the details. claude-haiku-5-5 has the cheaper cache reads ($0.01 against $0.016) but bills prompts above 100000 tokens at 5x; qwen3.8-flash keeps one rate across its whole window and also accepts video input. Pick claude-haiku-5-5 for short, cache-heavy prompts, and qwen3.8-flash for long prompts or video.
Benchmarks
Claude Haiku 5.5: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.
Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai
Pricing
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Flash | Δ | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / 1M tokens | $0.1 | $0.15 | 0.67× |
| Output / 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.47 | 1.1× |
| Cache read / 1M tokens | $0.01 | $0.016 | 0.63× |
| Cache write | 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) | 1.25x | - |
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 78 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)
Capabilities
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Tool calling | yes | yes |
| Thinking control | configurable | configurable |
| Structured output | yes | yes |
| Prompt caching | explicit (you mark the prefix) | implicit + explicit |
| Cache lifetime | 5m default, 1h option | explicit: 5m, reset on hit |
| Minimum cached prefix | 1024 tokens | 1024 tokens |
Specs
| Claude Haiku 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Input modalities | text image | text image video |
| Output modalities | text | text |
| Released | 2026-10-07 | 2026-08-27 |
| Knowledge cutoff | 2026-06 | - |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Thinking parameter | output_config.effort |
|
| Accepted values | output_config.effort
| enable_thinking
thinking_budget
preserve_thinking
|
| Default | medium | on qwen3.8-flash is hybrid thinking with thinking enabled by default, thinking_budget defaults to the 262,144-token chain maximum, and preserve_thinking is off |
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 · Qwen3.8 Flash
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
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 3 sentences
Enabling reasoning makes the model spend additional output tokens to plan and validate answers before responding, and those tokens are billed. It also increases compute and latency per request, so each task consumes more capacity than a non-reasoning call. As a result, billable tokens and compute roughly doubled, directly driving the higher invoice.
out 330 tok (+262 thinking) latency 8.9 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
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 8/8 cases
```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = 1 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 the original version counts adjacent equal pairs rather than items in a run, starting both `cur` and `best` at `0`, and it resets `cur` to `0` after a mismatch, thereby discarding the first element of the new run. That makes single-element inputs return `0`, and because every run is effectively measured in “steps” between equal elements, the last element is not counted—particularly noticeable when the longest run ends at the final index.
out 2123 tok (+1933 thinking) latency 43.8 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
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null
{ "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "September quarter", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null }
out 519 tok (+463 thinking) latency 10.5 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
Qwen3.8 Flash passed · 120 words, 0 banned, 1 question
We are announcing prompt caching across providers in our API gateway. Store approved prompt outputs once and reuse them across supported model providers, cutting latency, cost, and duplicate token spend. The feature matches identical requests, checks validity, and returns cached results while preserving routing controls. Developers keep existing endpoints; the gateway manages storage, invalidation, and provider differences. This reduces noisy repeat calls, improves steady responses, and frees teams to focus on better agent workflows. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Mistral, and custom routes are supported. Cache hits appear in analytics with latency, token, and cost reductions visible. Check retention and privacy rules before enabling it. Ready to add cache controls to your gateway? Enable it in settings and watch spend drop now.
out 5958 tok (+5805 thinking) latency 88.8 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="qwen3.8-flash", # 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: "qwen3.8-flash", // 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": "qwen3.8-flash", # 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: "qwen3.8-flash", // 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("qwen3.8-flash") // 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 Qwen3.8 Flash?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.1 vs $0.15, 1.5× 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 Qwen3.8 Flash 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 Qwen3.8 Flash 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.