Sonnet 5.5 vs Haiku 5.5
Side by side
| Sonnet 5.5 | Haiku 5.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Input / MTok | $2 | $0.10 |
| Output / MTok | $10 | $0.50 |
| Long-prompt input / output | same at any length | $0.50 / $2.50 over 100K |
| Cache read / MTok | $0.20 | $0.01 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 128K |
| Min cacheable prefix | 512 | 512 |
| Effort levels | low, medium, high, xhigh, max | low, medium, high, xhigh, max |
| Effort default | high | medium |
| Thinking | On by default — lowest setting is between_tools | On by default — can be disabled |
| Forced tool_choice | 400 | accepted |
The current pair for high-volume work
These are the newest models in their lines, and the choice between them now turns on different things than it did with Haiku 4.5. Both have the same large context window and output cap, the same minimum cacheable prefix and the full effort ladder, so the old reasons to step up to Sonnet — room for a big document set, prompts too short to cache on Haiku — no longer apply. What remains is price, reasoning depth and a handful of request-shape differences.
Haiku is far cheaper, until its prompts get long
On the base rates in the table above, Haiku 5.5 costs a small fraction of Sonnet 5.5 per token. But
Haiku 5.5 is priced by prompt length and Sonnet 5.5 is not: once a Haiku request's prompt passes the
threshold, the whole request bills at the second rate card, while Sonnet charges the same at any
length. Even past the threshold Haiku stays cheaper per token, so the real question is quality, not
price — but a workload that sends very long prompts should budget on the higher Haiku card, not the
headline one. Count real prompts with count_tokens against each model before comparing invoices,
rather than reusing a count taken on another model.
Defaults that differ
Both think by default. Haiku 5.5 defaults to medium effort, Sonnet 5.5 to high, so an unset
effort field is not a like-for-like comparison — set it explicitly on both when you test. Turning
thinking off works differently too: Haiku 5.5 still accepts thinking: {type: "disabled"} at effort
high or below, while Sonnet 5.5 rejects it and offers between_tools instead. Sonnet 5.5 rejects a
forced tool_choice; Haiku 5.5 accepts one and skips thinking for that response.
Refusals and fallbacks
Both can decline a request with a refusal stop reason. Sonnet 5.5 supports a server-side fallback
on the Claude API; Haiku 5.5 has none, so a declined Haiku request has to be handled in your own
code.
Related
See Claude Haiku 5.5, Claude Sonnet 5.5 and the model picker, which prices both at the context size you enter.
Verified 2026-09-30 against claude-api skill — shared/models.md, model-migration.md + SKILL.md model table and Anthropic's pricing and model-deprecation pages (canonical: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/overview, https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing, https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations).Could not confirm: On Microsoft Foundry it is hosted on Azure only, so Foundry features that require Anthropic hosting (code execution, the Files API, the newer web tools) are unavailable for it there.
Verified 2026-10-28 against claude-api skill — shared/models.md, model-migration.md + SKILL.md model table and Anthropic's pricing and model-deprecation pages (canonical: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/models/overview, https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/pricing, https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-deprecations).Could not confirm: None of the pages we read states a launch date, so none is shown. Forced tool_choice is accepted but skips thinking, and there is no server-side fallback when a request is refused.