My complaint about Haiku 4.5 was that it was 10x the price of GPT-6 Luna.

> Claude Haiku 5.5 is priced 90% lower than Claude Haiku 4.5 for requests up to 100,000 tokens, and 50% lower for requests over 100,000 tokens

Haiku and Luna now have the exact same price up to 100,000 tokens. Luna is now cheaper for anything after 100,000 tokens, even after Luna's own price increases at 270,000 it's still less than Haiku.

So it sounds like they've directly addressed that problem. Their self-reported benchmarks are all higher than Luna too.

▲

mrbungie 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yep. I was looking at the prices of lower tier models a few weeks ago for zero/few shot tasks (pre Jev) and Haiku rates just didn't make sense at all. I ended up using 5.6-luna.

Good to know that is going back to being an actual option from perf/price perspective.

▲

janalsncm 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If we look at their performance per dollar charts,

In OSWorld 2.1 Haiku is better.

On GDPval-AA v2.1 Haiku is equal or worse than Luna.

On Humanity’s Last Exam they don’t seem even be comparing Haiku with Luna.

For these baby distillations of flagships, I expect their users to be very price sensitive.

▲

JacobAsmuth 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Gotta be careful about these benchmarks because they're extremely difficult questions that may be significantly more complex than questions you would ask of the model in real use.

If Haiku is "noticing" this and working harder to improve quality, you could still see similar or better cost-per-task in easier domains. ObviousBench is a good test of this.

	▲	janalsncm an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Agreed. I’m specifically responding to the statement that Haiku was higher on all benchmarks. Normalized by cost (and why wouldn’t you normalize by cost?), it was higher on 1/3.

▲

lightbendover 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They do not, however, have the same price per task or task execution ability at any thinking level. Token cost alone is not a sufficient metric.