Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think: The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Olmo 3.1 32B Think remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning)

Anthropic

Reasoning: 8
Coding: 3
Multimodal: 3
Long Context: 5
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.002
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 103.774tokens/sec

Olmo 3.1 32B Think

Other

Reasoning: 8
Coding: 1
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 87.833tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning)` vs `Olmo 3.1 32B Think`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think debate, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) scores 80 against Olmo 3.1 32B Think's 80. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning)300ms

Olmo 3.1 32B Think300ms

Tokens per Second

Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning)103.774

Olmo 3.1 32B Think87.833

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think

Power is only one part of the equation. This Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) would cost $0.002, whereas Olmo 3.1 32B Think would cost $0.018. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Battle for You?

Choose Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) if...

Your top priority is raw performance and capability.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Your use case demands cutting-edge AI performance.

Choose Olmo 3.1 32B Think if...

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

You prioritize cost-effectiveness over maximum performance.

Your workload requires consistent, reliable performance.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the Claude 4.5 Haiku (Reasoning) vs Olmo 3.1 32B Think Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/