// head_to_head
Magnum v4 72B vs Claude Haiku 5.5
Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.
Magnum v4 72B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
anthracite-org
Magnum v4 72B
- Blended / 1M
- $3.13
- Context
- 33K
- Released
- Oct 22, 2024
- Overall score
- Not evaluated
anthropic
Claude Haiku 5.5
- Blended / 1M
- $0.200
- Context
- 1M
- Released
- Oct 7, 2026
- Overall score
- 69.8
Specs and pricing
| Metric | Magnum v4 72B | Claude Haiku 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench overall Weighted mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better. | — | 69.8 |
| Cost per point Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability. | — | $0.0091 |
| Blended price / 1M 3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic. | $3.13 | $0.200win |
| Input price / 1M | $2.50 | $0.100win |
| Output price / 1M | $5.00 | $0.500win |
| Cached input / 1M Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one. | — | $0.010 |
| Context window | 33K | 1Mwin |
| Max output tokens | 4K | 128Kwin |
Benchmarks by category
An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — Magnum v4 72B on top, Claude Haiku 5.5 below, both out of 100.
What each one costs to run
Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.
| Workload | Magnum v4 72B | Claude Haiku 5.5 |
|---|---|---|
| Support chatbot 1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests | $1,000/mo | $57.52/mo |
| RAG assistant 8K in / 600 out × 100K requests | $2,300/mo | $74.00/mo |
| Coding agent 40K in / 4K out × 20K requests | $2,400/mo | $69.60/mo |
| Document extraction 20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests | $2,875/mo | $133.00/mo |
| Bulk classification 500 in / 20 out × 5M requests | $6,750/mo | $255.00/mo |
Which should you pick?
You need to fit large documents in one call
Claude Haiku 5.5
Wider context window — 1M against 33K.
Magnum v4 72B vs Claude Haiku 5.5 FAQ
Which is better, Magnum v4 72B or Claude Haiku 5.5?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Magnum v4 72B does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.
Is Magnum v4 72B cheaper than Claude Haiku 5.5?
Claude Haiku 5.5 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, Magnum v4 72B lists at $3.13 per million tokens and Claude Haiku 5.5 at $0.200 — Claude Haiku 5.5 is 16× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — Magnum v4 72B charges $2.50 in and $5.00 out, Claude Haiku 5.5 charges $0.100 and $0.500 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.
Does Magnum v4 72B or Claude Haiku 5.5 have a bigger context window?
Claude Haiku 5.5 has the larger context window: 33K for Magnum v4 72B against 1M for Claude Haiku 5.5. Note that a window you can fill is not a window you should fill — retrieval quality usually degrades well before the limit, and you pay for every token you put in it.
Do Magnum v4 72B and Claude Haiku 5.5 support prompt caching?
Claude Haiku 5.5 publishes a cached-input rate of $0.010 per million tokens against a full input rate of $0.100. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Magnum v4 72B, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.
Related comparisons
How these numbers are produced
- Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
- Scores — LiveBench release 2026-10-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
- Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
- “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.
Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.