VERIFIED PROVIDER CAPABILITIES AND BILLING / VERIFIED 2026-10-12

Claude Haiku 5.5
vs Claude Sonnet 5.5

Compare these independently addressable official model endpoints on their native pricing units, documented capabilities, lifecycle and workflow fit.

PROVIDERSAnthropic · Anthropic
CONTEXT1,000,000 · 1,000,000
PRICINGmedia-specific pricing · $2.00/$10.00

LIVE VERIFIED FACTS

Current facts from the SXF model database.

Catalog 2026-10-12 · History 2026-10-12
AnthropicVerified 2026-10-12

Claude Haiku 5.5

Context
1,000,000
Max output
128,000
Input / MTok
See native rates
Cached / MTok
—
Output / MTok
See native rates
Input types
text + image
AnthropicVerified 2026-10-06

Claude Sonnet 5.5

Context
1,000,000
Max output
128,000
Input / MTok
$2.00
Cached / MTok
$0.20
Output / MTok
$10.00
Input types
text + image
Facts are generated from the canonical model catalog, not copied into this comparison.Current data ↗Change ledger ↗

SPECIALIST BUYER GUIDE

What matters for visual creation.

Published facts · no synthetic ranking
01

Native pricing

Use each model's official Standard pricing basis, prompt-tier thresholds, modality and generation resolution; do not compare mixed units as equal.

02

Workflow decision

Test representative user tasks, media inputs, latency needs and output quality. No fabricated benchmark score or winner is claimed.

DECISION FACTORS

What materially changes the choice.

No synthetic winner score
01

Context capacity

Both publish a 1,000,000-token context window.

02

Input modalities

Both list image, text as input types.

03

Direct token cost

Direct Standard token-cost comparison is unavailable because Claude Haiku 5.5 does not have a calculator-eligible provider-published paid rate in the SXF catalog.

HOW TO DECIDE

Specifications narrow the field. Your workload decides.

Context, modalities and direct token economics are comparable from official sources. Coding quality, latency, reliability and agent success should be measured on your own acceptance tests before production routing.

01

Replay real tasks

Use representative prompts, files, tools and expected outputs from the workload you plan to ship.

02

Measure task cost

Include retries, cached tokens, long-context rules and tool charges—not only headline input price.

03

Track failures

Record hallucinations, tool errors, timeout behavior and human corrections alongside pass rate.

04

Route by task

A portfolio can outperform a one-model policy when different task classes have different cost and capability needs.

INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS

No directly comparable independent result yet.

Evaluation registry ↗

SXF does not infer quality from specifications or compare benchmark scores across different evaluator versions/configurations.

WHAT CHANGED

Changes affecting this comparison.

No post-baseline factual changes recorded for Claude Haiku 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5 since 2026-10-06.

VERIFIED BASELINE2026-10-06Current facts remain aligned with the SXF ledger.

QUICK ANSWERS

Which has the larger context window: Claude Haiku 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Both publish a 1,000,000-token context window.

Which is cheaper: Claude Haiku 5.5 or Claude Sonnet 5.5?

Direct Standard token-cost comparison is unavailable because Claude Haiku 5.5 does not have a calculator-eligible provider-published paid rate in the SXF catalog.

Does SXF declare an overall winner?

No. This page compares source-backed specifications and economics. Quality, latency and task success require workload-specific evaluation evidence.