Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Llama 4 Scout: which should you choose in 2026?
Claude Haiku 5.5 (by Anthropic) and Llama 4 Scout (by Meta) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Choose Claude Haiku 5.5 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Llama 4 Scout if…
- • you work with longer documents, transcripts, or codebases
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | — | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | 9.1% SWE-bench |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | — | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | — | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | — | — |
Comprehensive comparison of AI models across intelligence, price, speed, and latency Intelligence Index | — |
Benchmark sources
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Anthropic | Meta |
| API provider | Anthropic | Meta |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,310,720 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 16,384 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Oct 7, 2026 | Apr 5, 2025 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | 2024-08-31 |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Text |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | No |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API pricing | ||
| Base input (per 1M tokens) | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Base output (per 1M tokens) | $0.50 | $0.30 |
| Higher-context pricing tiers |
| Base rate only |
| Price-comparison caveat | At least one model changes token rates above a prompt-token threshold. Base rates are shown, but an unconditional blended price ratio would not be like-for-like. | |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 7, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Claude Haiku 5.5 from Anthropic with Llama 4 Scout from Meta? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Llama 4 Scout | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Llama 4 Scout FAQ
Which is better, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Llama 4 Scout?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader. At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison. Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
At least one model uses context-dependent token-pricing tiers, so the published base rates do not support an unconditional blended price comparison.
Which model supports more context?
Llama 4 Scout has the larger context window (1,310,720 tokens vs 1,000,000 tokens).
Can I switch between Claude Haiku 5.5 and Llama 4 Scout?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Claude Haiku 5.5 comparisons
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
GPT-6 Luna Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6 Luna Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6 Luna, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
Grok 4.7
xAI
Grok 4.7 is SpaceXAI's flagship model for coding, agentic tasks, and knowledge work, succeeding Grok 4.6.
Fugu Ultra v2
Sakana AI
Fugu Ultra v2 is the higher-performance model in Sakana AI's Fugu family.
More Llama 4 Scout comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 4 significantly enhances the capabilities of its predecessor, Sonnet 3.7, excelling in both coding and reasoning tasks with improved precision and controllability.
Mistral Large 4
Mistral AI
Mistral Large 4 is a frontier multimodal (text and image input) model from Mistral AI built for reasoning, coding, and agentic workloads.
Pareto 26.10 Preview
Unbiased
Pareto is a multimodal composite model built for research, coding, and agentic workflows, while delivering frontier-level performance across a broad range of general-purpose tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Anthropic
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is Anthropic's Sonnet-class model for well-scoped everyday work, succeeding Claude Sonnet 5 as a direct upgrade.