Claude Haiku 5.5 is $0.05 cheaper per 1M input tokens (33.3% lower; 1.5x difference).
API cost decision in 10 seconds
NewClaude Haiku 5.5 vs Qwen3.8 Omni Flash
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 when budget is the priority.
Page updated:
Data confirmed:
Prices normalized to USD per 1M tokens
Sample workload: 1M input + 500K output
Budget verdict
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 when budget is the priority.
On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Claude Haiku 5.5 is estimated at $0.35 vs $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.04 (9.1% lower).
Cost-first pickClaude Haiku 5.5
Context-first pickBoth models
Sample savings$0.049.1%
10x traffic gap$0.35
The reported context window is tied, so cost and provider fit carry more weight. At 10x that traffic, the same price gap is about $0.35. Use the calculator below to replace the sample workload with your own token volume.
Cost sensitivity
Workload Sensitivity
Cost winner changes by workload shape: input-heavy / RAG favors Claude Haiku 5.5, balanced workload favors Claude Haiku 5.5, and output-heavy chatbot favors Qwen3.8 Omni Flash.
| Workload shape | Token mix | Better pick | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Input-heavy / RAG | 5M input + 500K output | Claude Haiku 5.5 | $0.75 | $0.98 |
| Balanced workload | 1M input + 1M output | Claude Haiku 5.5 | $0.6 | $0.62 |
| Output-heavy chatbot | 1M input + 5M output | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | $2.6 | $2.5 |
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is $0.03 cheaper per 1M output tokens (6% lower; 1.06x difference).
Both models report the same context window at 1M tokens.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is $0.04 cheaper on the standard workload (9.1% lower).
Estimate your workload cost
Your Workload Cost
This estimate uses normalized public API pricing per 1M tokens. It is a planning aid, not a billing quote. Verify provider pricing, limits, and terms before production use.
Quick Decision
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the lower input price; Qwen3.8 Omni Flash has the lower output price; both models report the same context window. For the 1M input plus 500K output sample, Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper for the standard workload.
For a 1M input token plus 500K output token workload, the estimated API cost is $0.35 for Claude Haiku 5.5 and $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash.
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5 when you care most about lower input-token price.
Choose Qwen3.8 Omni Flash when you care most about lower output-token price.
- On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Claude Haiku 5.5 is estimated at $0.35 vs $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.04 (9.1% lower).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is $0.04 cheaper on the standard workload (9.1% lower).
- Claude Haiku 5.5 is $0.05 cheaper per 1M input tokens (33.3% lower; 1.5x difference).
- Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is $0.03 cheaper per 1M output tokens (6% lower; 1.06x difference).
- Both models report the same context window at 1M tokens.
| Feature | NewClaude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic) | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Input Price prompt tokens per 1M | $0.1 | $0.15 |
| Completion Price per 1M tokens | $0.5 | $0.47 |
| Sample Workload Cost 1M input + 500K output | $0.35 | $0.39 |
| Context Window | 1M | 1M |
| Release Date |
Use-Case Decision Matrix
| Use case | Better pick | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Budget-constrained production | Claude Haiku 5.5 | On the standard 1M input plus 500K output workload, Claude Haiku 5.5 is estimated at $0.35 vs $0.39 for Qwen3.8 Omni Flash, saving $0.04 (9.1% lower). |
| High-volume input processing | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Lower prompt-token price matters most when prompts, retrieved passages, or documents dominate the bill. |
| Long responses and chatbots | Qwen3.8 Omni Flash | Lower output-token price matters most when assistants generate many completion tokens. |
| RAG or long-document work | Tie | A larger context window leaves more room for retrieved passages, conversation history, or source files. |
Related Alternatives
- Claude Haiku 5.5 (batch) can replace Claude Haiku 5.5 when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.17.
- Qwen3.8 27B (free) can replace Qwen3.8 Omni Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Qwen3 Next 80B A3B Instruct (free) can replace Qwen3.8 Omni Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Qwen3 Coder 480B A35B (free) can replace Qwen3.8 Omni Flash when lower sample workload cost matters most: $0.
- Llama 4 Scout offers 1.31M context with $0.47 sample workload cost.
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash offers 1.05M context with $0.28 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna offers 1.05M context with $0.35 sample workload cost.
- GPT-6 Luna Pro offers 1.05M context with $0.35 sample workload cost.
- DeepSeek V4.1 Flash · DeepSeek · #1
- Step 5 Preview · StepFun · #2
- GLM 5.3 Flash · Z.ai · #3
- MiMo-V2.6-Flash · Xiaomi · #4
Cheaper alternatives
Review low-cost models sorted by a standard 1M input plus 500K output workload.
Open cheapest modelsLarger context alternatives
Find models with larger context windows for RAG, long documents, and codebase review.
Open largest context modelsProvider catalogs
Compare models within provider hubs before choosing a final API vendor.
Open provider hubsAnthropic catalog
Review all tracked Anthropic models before deciding whether this matchup is the right shortlist.
Open Anthropic modelsQwen catalog
Check other Qwen models with comparable pricing, context, or release timing.
Open Qwen modelsClaude Haiku 5.5 is Anthropic's small, fast model for high-volume, cost-sensitive work such as summarization, subagents, and browser use. It succeeds Claude Haiku 4.5 with stronger coding, computer use, and...
Qwen3.8 Omni Flash is an omni-modal reasoning model from Alibaba, the first Qwen model built around agentic capabilities with native audio-video understanding. It is suited for audio-video analysis and summarization,...