Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) | Qwen3.5 Omni Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $1 | $0.4 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $5 | $4.8 |
Verdict. Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus split the benchmark comparison evenly at 1–1. The tiebreaker here is price, speed, and what you actually run them on.
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 (Reasoning) is strongest on Coding Index (43.9), Intelligence Index (29.9). Qwen3.5 Omni Plus leads on Intelligence Index (31.3).
Speed. On throughput, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens at 127 tok/s versus 90 tok/s — about 29% faster. On time-to-first-token, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus responds in 2120ms vs 23720ms, 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 (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 (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 (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 (Reasoning).
It's a tie — both models win 1 benchmarks each across 12 evaluated categories. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus generates tokens faster at 127 tok/s vs 90 tok/s. However, Qwen3.5 Omni Plus has lower time-to-first-token (2.12s vs 23.72s).
Choose based on your priorities: Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for lower cost, both perform similarly on benchmarks, and Qwen3.5 Omni Plus for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.