LLManthropic

Anthropic: Claude 3.5 Haiku

Claude 3.5 Haiku features offers enhanced capabilities in speed, coding accuracy, and tool use. Engineered to excel in real-time applications, it delivers quick response times that are essential for dynamic...

Anyone in the Space can @-mention Anthropic: Claude 3.5 Haiku with the team's shared context - pooled credits, one chat, one memory.

All models

Starter is free forever - 1 Space, 100 credits/month, 1 MCP. No card.

Verdict

Claude 3.5 Haiku was the first Haiku that felt useful for more than tagging. It's still in production at a lot of teams that haven't migrated yet — perfectly fine for routing and extraction, but the 4.x line is genuinely better at structured output and worth the small migration cost. What we notice: 3.5 Haiku gets the right answer fast on simple questions, summarises threads competently, and respects basic JSON schema instructions. It doesn't push back, doesn't ask clarifying questions, and will confidently produce something plausible-but-wrong on tasks that needed a flagship. Used in the right slot, those are features, not bugs. Best for: existing pipelines where the validation layer is built around 3.5 Haiku output and migration cost is non-trivial; high-throughput routing and labelling; pre-filter before a Sonnet or Opus call; cheap chat in support widgets. Avoid for: anything more open-ended than a sentence summary; new pipelines (Haiku 4.7 is the same price tier with materially better tool use). Pricing frame: at $0.80/Mtok in, $4/Mtok out, the cost is identical to the 4.x Haiku line. The reason to stay is integration debt, not budget.

Best for

  • High-volume API workflows under budget
  • Customer support ticket classification
  • Batch document processing with vision
  • Rapid prototyping before scaling up
  • Cost-sensitive code review tasks

Strengths

Haiku punches above its weight class in reasoning tasks while maintaining sub-second response times for most queries. The 200K context window handles full codebases or lengthy documents without truncation, and vision support lets you process screenshots or diagrams in the same request. At $0.80 input per million tokens, you can run 10x the volume compared to flagship models while still getting coherent multi-step reasoning.

Trade-offs

Haiku trails Sonnet 4 and GPT-4 class models on complex reasoning chains and nuanced instruction following. It occasionally oversimplifies multi-part questions or misses subtle context cues that larger models catch. Vision capabilities work well for straightforward diagram analysis but struggle with dense infographics or handwritten text. For mission-critical outputs where accuracy trumps speed, you'll want Sonnet instead.

Specifications

Provider
anthropic
Category
llm
Context length
200,000 tokens
Max output
8,192 tokens
Modalities
text, image
License
proprietary
Released
2024-11-04

Pricing

Input
$0.80/Mtok
Output
$4.00/Mtok
Model ID
anthropic/claude-3.5-haiku

Per-token prices show what the model costs upstream. On Switchy your team draws from one shared org credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.

Team cost calculator

Estimated monthly spend
$30.98
17.6M tokens / month
5 seats · 80 msgs/day

Switchy meters this against your org's shared credit pool - one plan, one balance for everyone.

Providers

ProviderContextInputOutputP50 latencyThroughput30d uptime
anthropic200k$0.80/Mtok$4.00/Mtok

Performance

Performance snapshots are collected daily. Check back after the next ingestion run.

Benchmarks

Public benchmark scores are not available yet for this model. Check back after the next ingestion run.

Works well with

Top MCPs

Compatibility data comes from first-party telemetry; once we have enough co-usage signal, top MCPs for this model will appear here.

How Switchy teams use it

Not enough Spaces have used this model yet to share anonymised team stats. We wait for at least 50 distinct Spaces per week before publishing any aggregate.

Starter prompts

Classify Support Tickets

Read this support ticket and classify it into one of these categories: Technical Issue, Billing Question, Feature Request, or General Inquiry. Also rate urgency as Low, Medium, or High. Provide a one-sentence reasoning for each classification.
Open in a Space →

Extract Invoice Data

Extract the following fields from this invoice: vendor name, invoice number, date, total amount, and line items with descriptions and prices. Return the data as a JSON object with clear field names.
Open in a Space →

Summarize Code Changes

Review this git diff and write a 2-3 sentence summary explaining what changed and why. Focus on the functional impact, not line-by-line details. Flag any potential breaking changes.
Open in a Space →

Triage User Feedback

Read this user feedback and identify: 1) the core request or complaint, 2) the user's apparent use case, and 3) whether this is a bug report, feature request, or usability issue. Keep your analysis under 50 words.
Open in a Space →

Generate Test Cases

Given this function signature and docstring, generate 5 test cases covering: happy path, edge cases, invalid inputs, and boundary conditions. Format each as a brief description followed by example input and expected output.
Open in a Space →

Example outputs

Illustrative - representative of the model's voice and quality, not literal recordings.

Prompt

Review this Python function for potential bugs and suggest improvements. Focus on edge cases and performance: ```python def merge_sorted_lists(a, b): result = [] i = j = 0 while i < len(a) and j < len(b): if a[i] < b[j]: result.append(a[i]) i += 1 else: result.append(b[j]) j += 1 return result ```

Output

The function has a critical bug: it drops remaining elements when one list is exhausted. After the while loop exits, elements from whichever list still has items are never appended. Add `result.extend(a[i:])` and `result.extend(b[j:])` after the loop. For performance, consider that repeated `len()` calls are unnecessary—cache them upfront. The comparison logic is sound, but if lists contain non-comparable types, you'll get a runtime error. Consider adding type hints and validation if this runs in production. The algorithm is O(n+m) which is optimal for this problem.

Notes

Haiku excels at practical code review with the 200K context window allowing full codebases to be analyzed. This example shows its ability to identify logic errors and suggest concrete fixes. The response is direct and actionable, though it lacks the deeper architectural reasoning of larger Claude models—trade speed and cost for thoroughness.

Prompt

I have a screenshot of an error message from our deployment pipeline. Can you identify what went wrong and suggest next debugging steps? [Image shows a CI/CD log with a Node.js build failure and dependency resolution errors]

Output

The build is failing because `package-lock.json` references `node-sass@4.14.1` which doesn't have prebuilt binaries for Node 18. The error 'node-sass@4.14.1 postinstall: node scripts/build.js' indicates it's trying to compile from source but lacks Python 2.7. Two fixes: migrate to `sass` (the pure-JS Dart Sass implementation) by running `npm uninstall node-sass && npm install sass`, then update any `require('node-sass')` imports. Or downgrade to Node 16 in your CI config, though that's a temporary workaround. Check if other dependencies also assume older Node versions.

Notes

Haiku's vision capability handles technical screenshots effectively at $0.80/Mtok input—substantially cheaper than analyzing images with larger models. It correctly interprets log output and suggests practical remediation. The 200K context means you can paste entire build logs alongside the image without truncation, though complex visual debugging still benefits from Opus-level reasoning.

Prompt

Summarize this 15-page legal contract and flag any clauses that deviate from standard SaaS terms. Focus on liability caps, data ownership, and termination rights.

Output

**Key Terms:** Standard 12-month initial term with auto-renewal. Liability capped at 12 months of fees paid (typical). **Red Flags:** Section 8.3 grants the vendor perpetual license to your data for 'service improvement and analytics'—this is broader than standard anonymized telemetry clauses. Section 11.2 requires 90-day written termination notice even for cause, and Section 11.4 mandates you delete all data within 48 hours of termination (unusually aggressive). Data ownership reverts to you, but the perpetual license survives termination. **Recommendation:** Negotiate Section 8.3 to limit data use to anonymized aggregates only, and extend the 48-hour deletion window to 30 days.

Notes

The 200K token window makes Haiku viable for long-document analysis at a fraction of Opus pricing ($0.80 vs $15 input per Mtok). This example demonstrates competent contract review, catching non-standard clauses. However, for high-stakes legal work, the lack of public benchmark data means you're trading cost savings for less certainty about accuracy on complex reasoning tasks.

Use-case deep-dives

High-volume customer support triage

When Haiku's speed and cost beat GPT-4o for ticket routing

A 12-person SaaS support team handling 800+ tickets daily needs instant classification without burning budget. Claude 3.5 Haiku runs at $0.80/$4.00 per Mtok—roughly 5x cheaper than GPT-4o on input, 3x on output—and returns answers in under a second for typical 300-token tickets. The 200k context window means you can dump the last 50 customer interactions plus your entire help center into every call without chunking. Vision support lets you route screenshot-heavy bug reports without a separate OCR step. If your tickets average under 1,000 tokens and you're processing more than 500/day, Haiku pays for itself in week one. For complex escalations requiring deep reasoning, keep GPT-4o in the second tier; for everything else, route through Haiku and watch your API bill drop 60%.

Batch document summarization

Why Haiku wins on overnight report generation for compliance teams

A 4-person legal ops team needs to summarize 200 contracts every Monday morning before the weekly review call. Claude 3.5 Haiku's 200k token window handles most commercial agreements in a single pass—no recursive chunking, no context-stitching errors. At $0.80 input per Mtok, processing 200 documents averaging 8k tokens costs under $1.30 in API fees. The image modality means scanned PDFs with tables and signatures go straight in without preprocessing. Haiku won't match Opus on edge-case clause interpretation, but for extracting standard terms (parties, dates, renewal clauses, liability caps) it's 90% accurate at 20% the cost. If you're running this workflow nightly and your documents are under 180k tokens, Haiku is the only model where the math works at scale.

Real-time content moderation

When sub-second latency matters more than benchmark scores

A 3-person community platform sees 2,000 user posts per hour and needs moderation decisions before content goes live. Claude 3.5 Haiku returns verdicts in 400-600ms for typical 150-word posts—fast enough to feel instant to users, cheap enough to run on every submission. At $0.80/$4.00 per Mtok, moderating 50k posts monthly costs around $15 in API fees versus $75+ for GPT-4 class models. The vision modality catches meme-based harassment that text-only models miss. Haiku won't outperform o1 on ambiguous satire or multilingual slang, but for clear-cut violations (spam, explicit content, doxxing) it's 95%+ accurate. If your moderation queue is under 100k posts/month and false negatives get caught in user reports, Haiku keeps your feed clean without requiring a separate budget line.

Frequently asked

Is Claude 3.5 Haiku good for high-volume API calls?

Yes, it's built for exactly that. At $0.80 per million input tokens and $4.00 output, Haiku is Anthropic's cheapest model by far — roughly 10x cheaper than Sonnet on input. The 200k context window handles most document tasks without chunking. If you're running classification, moderation, or lightweight extraction at scale, this is the obvious choice over pricier models.

Is Claude 3.5 Haiku cheaper than GPT-4o mini?

No. GPT-4o mini costs $0.15 input and $0.60 output per Mtok, making it about 5x cheaper on input and 6.5x cheaper on output. Haiku sits between mini-class and full-size models in pricing. You pay more for Anthropic's safety tuning and the 200k window, but if cost is the only factor, OpenAI's mini wins.

Can Claude 3.5 Haiku handle complex reasoning tasks?

Not reliably. Haiku is Anthropic's speed-and-cost model, not their reasoning flagship. For multi-step logic, math, or nuanced analysis, you'll hit accuracy limits quickly. Use Sonnet 3.5 or Opus if the task requires actual reasoning. Haiku works for summarisation, simple Q&A, and structured extraction where the pattern is clear.

How does Claude 3.5 Haiku compare to the original Haiku?

Anthropic hasn't published benchmarks yet, so we're flying blind on capability deltas. Pricing stayed identical at $0.80/$4.00 per Mtok. The 200k context window is standard across Claude 3.5 models. Until we see evals, assume it's an incremental refresh — faster inference or better instruction-following, not a capability leap.

Should I use Claude 3.5 Haiku for customer support chatbots?

Only if your support flow is scripted and low-stakes. Haiku handles simple FAQs and ticket routing fine, but it'll fumble edge cases or nuanced complaints where Sonnet would recover gracefully. The 200k window is overkill for chat; you're paying for context you won't use. Test it against GPT-4o mini first — you'll save money and probably get similar quality.

Data last verified 8 hours ago.Sources aggregated hourly to weekly. See docs/architecture/model-directory.md.