Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) | Qwen3.5 Omni Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $1 | $0.4 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $5 | $4.8 |
Verdict. Qwen3.5 Omni Plus takes the aggregate benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 categories. Real workloads usually care about a handful of specific tasks — see the per-benchmark table above.
Pricing. Both models sit in the mid-tier bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Qwen3.5 Omni Plus makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) is strongest on Intelligence Index (24.1). Qwen3.5 Omni Plus leads on Intelligence Index (31.3).
Speed. On throughput, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) generates tokens at 90 tok/s versus 49 tok/s — about 45% faster. On time-to-first-token, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) responds in 1040ms vs 2510ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Anthropic and Alibaba sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Anthropic tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Alibaba often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) costs $105.00 ($1260/year); Qwen3.5 Omni Plus costs $84.00 ($1008/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) ≈ $15.00/run, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $11.60/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) ≈ $700/run, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $560/run. Qwen3.5 Omni Plus becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $1.50/M tokens vs $2.00/M for Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning).
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus wins 1 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning). See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) generates tokens faster at 90 tok/s vs 49 tok/s. Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) also has lower time-to-first-token (1.04s vs 2.51s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for lower cost, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for stronger benchmark performance, and Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.