Side-by-side comparison
GLM 4.5V vs Claude 3.5 Haiku
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
👁 Vision
🔧 Tools
Input / 1M
$0.8000
Output / 1M
$4.0000
| GLM 4.5V | Claude 3.5 Haiku | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Z.ai | Anthropic |
| Context window Maximum tokens (input + output) the model can process in a single request. Glossary → | 65,536 | 200,000 |
| Capabilities Optional capabilities the model advertises: vision (images), tools (function calling), json_mode (structured output). | vision, tools | vision, tools |
| Input $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens you send (prompt + context). Cheaper side highlighted. Glossary → | 0.6000 | 0.8000 |
| Output $ / 1M tokens Cost for tokens the model generates. Output is normally 3–5× pricier than input. Glossary → | 1.8000 | 4.0000 |
Frequently asked questions
Which is cheaper, GLM 4.5V or Claude 3.5 Haiku?
GLM 4.5V is cheaper than Claude 3.5 Haiku on a 50/50 input/output blend by about $1.2 per 1M tokens. Exact savings depend on your input-vs-output ratio — use the cost calculator on this page for a workload-specific estimate.
Which has a larger context window, GLM 4.5V or Claude 3.5 Haiku?
Claude 3.5 Haiku has the larger context window at 200k tokens versus 66k tokens for GLM 4.5V. That means Claude 3.5 Haiku can ingest about 3.1x as much text per request.
What is the difference between GLM 4.5V and Claude 3.5 Haiku?
GLM 4.5V comes from Z.ai; Claude 3.5 Haiku comes from Anthropic. They differ in pricing, context window, and supported capabilities — see the side-by-side table on this page for the exact figures, refreshed nightly.