Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 12.5 to 5.3. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is 4.4x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct leads the overall LLM Stats Score 12.5 to 5.3, ranking #239 overall.
In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is roughly 4.4x 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
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2024
Choose Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
- overall performance matters — it scores 12.5 and ranks #239 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 4.4x cheaper per token
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
9 reported for Claude 3.5 Haiku · 14 for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Claude 3.5 Haiku outperforms in 1 benchmarks (HumanEval), while Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MMLU-Pro).
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 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, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($0.80/1M tokens) is 2.3x more expensive than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude 3.5 Haiku ($4.00/1M tokens) is 10.0x more expensive than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude 3.5 Haiku is more expensive than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude 3.5 Haiku accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's 131,072 tokens. Claude 3.5 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is limited to 8,192 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude 3.5 Haiku is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen2.5 72B Instruct uses Qwen.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Qwen
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude 3.5 Haiku was released on 2024-10-22, while Qwen2.5 72B Instruct was released on 2024-09-19.
Claude 3.5 Haiku is 1 month newer than Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.
Oct 22, 2024
1.9 years ago
1mo newerSep 19, 2024
2.0 years ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude 3.5 Haiku is available from Bedrock, Google, Anthropic. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Hyperbolic, Fireworks, Together.
Claude 3.5 Haiku
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude 3.5 Haiku and Qwen2.5 72B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude 3.5 Haiku vs Qwen2.5 72B Instruct.