Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 Omni Plus | Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.4 | $1 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $4.8 | $5 |
Verdict. Qwen3.5 Omni Plus wins the overall benchmark matchup 1–0 across 1 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
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. Qwen3.5 Omni Plus is strongest on Intelligence Index (20.4). Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) leads on Intelligence Index (15.4).
Speed. On throughput, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens at 99 tok/s versus 79 tok/s — about 20% faster. On time-to-first-token, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) responds in 730ms vs 2140ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Alibaba and Anthropic sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while Anthropic 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): Qwen3.5 Omni Plus costs $84.00 ($1008/year); Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) costs $105.00 ($1260/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $11.60/run, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) ≈ $15.00/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.5 Omni Plus ≈ $560/run, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) ≈ $700/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.
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.
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens faster at 99 tok/s vs 79 tok/s. However, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Non-reasoning) has lower time-to-first-token (0.73s vs 2.14s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for lower cost, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for stronger benchmark performance, and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.