Model Comparison

Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 4.4x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 1 benchmarks (MATH), while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 2 benchmarks (GPQA, MGSM).

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks.

Sun Apr 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/1M tokens) is 2.3x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).

For output processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($4.00/1M tokens) is 10.0x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Haiku is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Sun Apr 12 2026 • llm-stats.com
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input tokens$0.80
Output tokens$4.00
Best providerAWS Bedrock
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input tokens$0.35
Output tokens$0.40
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 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.

Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Input200,000 tokens
Output200,000 tokens
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Input128,000 tokens
Output128,000 tokens
Sun Apr 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Claude 3.5 Haiku does not.

Llama 3.2 90B 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 90B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct uses Llama 3.2.

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 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.

Claude 3.5 Haiku is 1 month newer than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.

Claude 3.5 Haiku

Oct 22, 2024

1.5 years ago

3w newer
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Sep 25, 2024

1.5 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Claude 3.5 Haiku is available from Bedrock, Google, Anthropic. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.

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 90B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.35/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.40/1M
bedrock logo
AWS Bedrock
Input Price:Input: $0.72/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.72/1M
fireworks logo
Fireworks
Input Price:Input: $0.89/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.89/1M
together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $1.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
hyperbolic logo
Hyperbolic
Input Price:Input: $2.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $2.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

Anthropic
Larger context window (200,000 tokens)
Higher MATH score (69.4% vs 68.0%)
Meta
Supports multimodal inputs
Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Has open weights
Higher GPQA score (46.7% vs 41.6%)
Higher MGSM score (86.9% vs 85.6%)

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Anthropic
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Meta
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

FAQ

Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct

Llama 3.2 90B Instruct shows notably better performance in the majority of benchmarks. Claude 3.5 Haiku is made by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is made by Meta. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.
Claude 3.5 Haiku scores HumanEval: 88.1%, MGSM: 85.6%, DROP: 83.1%, MATH: 69.4%, MMLU-Pro: 65.0%. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct scores AI2D: 92.3%, DocVQA: 90.1%, MGSM: 86.9%, MMLU: 86.0%, ChartQA: 85.5%.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 2.3x cheaper for input tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku costs $0.80/M input and $4.00/M output via bedrock. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct costs $0.35/M input and $0.40/M output via deepinfra.
Claude 3.5 Haiku supports 200K tokens and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct supports 128K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.
Key differences include context window (200K vs 128K), input pricing ($0.80 vs $0.35/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Llama 3.2). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.
Claude 3.5 Haiku is developed by Anthropic and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is developed by Meta.