Claude Haiku 4.5 at a glance
Good enough on 8/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 0 tasks. Doesn't qualify on any: Structured Data & Fact Extraction, Social & Promotional Content.
Cost vs quality across all tasks
within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.
Per-task breakdown
| Task | Category | Quality (% of best) | Confidence | Overpay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Topic Cluster Labeling | Topic Organization & Clustering | 90% | MEDIUM | 2.9x |
| Report Executive Summary Generation | Content Summarization & Synthesis | 92% | MEDIUM | 3.3x |
| Social Post Portfolio Selection | Relevance, Classification & Matching | 92% | MEDIUM | 7x |
| Catalyst And Scenario Analysis | Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions | 91% | MEDIUM | 8.6x |
| Engagement Opportunity Triage | Relevance, Classification & Matching | 98% | RANKED | 10x |
| Language Identification | Relevance, Classification & Matching | 99% | RANKED | 11x |
| Section Prompt Generation | Infrastructure & Utility | 94% | HIGH | 17x |
| Voice Profile Generation | Long-form Content Generation | 92% | RANKED | 18x |
Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.