Beam 1.0 vs Claude Haiku 5.5
Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the LLM Stats Score 49.9 to 44.6. Claude Haiku 5.5 is 3.0x cheaper per token.
Reflection AI · Anthropic · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Haiku 5.5 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 49.9 to 44.6, ranking #20 overall.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Haiku 5.5 wins 2; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Claude Haiku 5.5 is roughly 3.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Beam 1.0
- you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5
- overall performance matters — it scores 49.9 and ranks #20 on LLM Stats
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 2 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 3.0x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 36 for Claude Haiku 5.5
Beam 1.0 outperforms in 1 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Pro), while Claude Haiku 5.5 is better at 2 benchmarks (Humanity's Last Exam (with tools), SWE-bench Multilingual).
Claude Haiku 5.5 shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 4.0x more expensive than Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 2.4x more expensive than Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.50/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Claude Haiku 5.5.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Claude Haiku 5.5's 1,000,000 tokens. Beam 1.0 can generate longer responses up to 131,072 tokens, while Claude Haiku 5.5 is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Claude Haiku 5.5 supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.
Claude Haiku 5.5 can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Beam 1.0
Claude Haiku 5.5
License
Usage and distribution terms
Beam 1.0 is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Claude Haiku 5.5 uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Claude Haiku 5.5 was released on 2026-10-07.
Beam 1.0 is 0 month newer than Claude Haiku 5.5.
Oct 16, 2026
4 days ago
1w newerOct 7, 2026
1 weeks ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Beam 1.0 has a knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Claude Haiku 5.5 has a cutoff of 2026-06-01.
Beam 1.0 has more recent training data (up to 2026-06-30), making it potentially better informed about events through that date compared to Claude Haiku 5.5 (2026-06-01).
Jun 2026
Jun 2026
Provider Availability
Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Claude Haiku 5.5 is available from Anthropic.
Beam 1.0
Claude Haiku 5.5
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Claude Haiku 5.5 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Claude Haiku 5.5.