Claude 3 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads the LLM Stats Score 5.3 to -1.3. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 1.4x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Meta · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct leads the overall LLM Stats Score 5.3 to -1.3, ranking #288 overall.
In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct wins 4; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is roughly 1.4x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Claude 3 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 Haiku
- you process long inputs — it offers a 200,000 token context window
Choose Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
- overall performance matters — it scores 5.3 and ranks #288 on LLM Stats
- your work emphasizes reasoning — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 4 of 4 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 1.4x cheaper per token
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Sep 2024
- 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
10 reported for Claude 3 Haiku · 13 for Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Claude 3 Haiku outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is better at 4 benchmarks (GPQA, MATH, MGSM, MMLU).
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude 3 Haiku ($0.25/1M tokens) is 1.4x cheaper than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.35/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude 3 Haiku ($1.25/1M tokens) is 3.1x more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct ($0.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude 3 Haiku is more expensive than Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Claude 3 Haiku accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Llama 3.2 90B Instruct's 128,000 tokens. Claude 3 Haiku can generate longer responses up to 200,000 tokens, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is limited to 128,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude 3 Haiku
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude 3 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.
Proprietary
Closed source
Llama 3.2
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude 3 Haiku was released on 2024-03-13, while Llama 3.2 90B Instruct was released on 2024-09-25.
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is 7 months newer than Claude 3 Haiku.
Mar 13, 2024
2.5 years ago
Sep 25, 2024
1.9 years ago
6mo newerKnowledge 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 Haiku is available from Anthropic, Bedrock, Google. Llama 3.2 90B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Bedrock, Fireworks, Together, Hyperbolic.
Claude 3 Haiku
Llama 3.2 90B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude 3 Haiku and Llama 3.2 90B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude 3 Haiku vs Llama 3.2 90B Instruct.