The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Claude 3.5 Haiku leads the LLM Stats Score 5.2 to -1.3. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is 32.0x cheaper per token.

Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Claude 3.5 Haiku leads the overall LLM Stats Score 5.2 to -1.3, ranking #298 overall.

In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude 3.5 Haiku wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.

On price, Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is roughly 32.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Claude 3.5 Haiku also accepts a larger context window (200,000 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 Claude 3.5 Haiku

  • overall performance matters — it scores 5.2 and ranks #298 on LLM Stats
  • you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2024

Choose Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 32.0x cheaper per token
  • you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Core performance indexes
5.2
#298
-1.3
#334
5.4
#294
-0.8
#325
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
3 of 3
0 of 3
Input price
$0.80 / M
$0.05 / M
Output price
$4.00 / M
$0.05 / M
Context window
200,000
128,000

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

1 shared
Index
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
10.6#249
1.8#294
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

9 reported for Claude 3.5 Haiku · 11 for Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

3 shared

Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MGSM), while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is better at 0 benchmarks.

Claude 3.5 Haiku significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue Sep 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/1M tokens) is 16.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct ($0.05/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($4.00/1M tokens) is 80.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct ($0.05/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Haiku is more expensive than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Tue Sep 15 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input tokens$0.80
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerAWS Bedrock
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Input tokens$0.05
Output tokens$0.05
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Claude 3.5 Haiku accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 11B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Tue Sep 15 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Claude 3.5 Haiku does not.

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct uses Llama 3.2 Community License.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Proprietary

Closed source

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Llama 3.2 Community License

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Llama 3.2 11B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude 3.5 Haiku is 1 month newer than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Oct 22, 2024

1.9 years ago

3w newer
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

2.0 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2023-12-31, while Claude 3.5 Haiku's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Llama 3.2 11B Instruct's training data extends to 2023-12-31, but cannot make a direct comparison without Claude 3.5 Haiku's cutoff date.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

Dec 2023

Provider Availability

Claude 3.5 Haiku is available from Bedrock, Google, Anthropic. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Sambanova, Bedrock, Groq, Together, Fireworks.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.80/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
google logo
Google
Input Price:Input: $0.80/1MOutput Price:Output: $4.00/1M
anthropic logo
Anthropic
Input Price:Input: $1.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $5.00/1M

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.05/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.05/1M
sambanova logo
Sambanova
Input Price:Input: $0.15/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.30/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.16/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.16/1M
groq logo
Groq
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.18/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.18/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.20/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Claude 3.5 Haiku
✓ Preferred
Llama 3.2 11B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 11B Instruct.

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Haiku or Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Claude 3.5 Haiku leads the LLM Stats Score 5.2 to -1.3. Claude 3.5 Haiku is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Claude 3.5 Haiku compare to Llama 3.2 11B Instruct in benchmarks?

Claude 3.5 Haiku scores HumanEval: 88.1%, MGSM: 85.6%, DROP: 83.1%, MATH: 69.4%, MMLU-Pro: 65.0%. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct scores AI2D: 91.1%, DocVQA: 88.4%, ChartQA: 83.4%, VQAv2 (test): 75.2%, MMLU: 73.0%.

Is Claude 3.5 Haiku cheaper than Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is 16.0x cheaper for input tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.80/M input and $4.00/M output via bedrock. Llama 3.2 11B Instruct costs $0.05/M input and $0.05/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K tokens and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (5.2 vs -1.3), context window (200K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.80 vs $0.05/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2 Community License). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Claude 3.5 Haiku and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct?

Claude 3.5 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 11B Instruct is developed by Meta.