PeerLM logoPeerLM
All Comparisons

OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini vs Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5: Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators

This analysis compares OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini vs Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 based on PeerLM's Coding Performance with 10 Evaluators benchmark suite.

OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini

4.2

preference score

vs

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5

5.8

preference score

Judges ranked the responses in this Run against each other; the rank is mapped onto a 0–10 scale. It shows which response was preferred, not how good either one is — and it is not a percentage, a pass rate, or a check that the output was correct.

Sample size for this comparison was not recorded. Treat it as directional.

Evidence clarification: this article predates recorded sample provenance. Treat its conclusions as claims about the displayed examples; they do not establish general model superiority, verified correctness, or production suitability.

Key Findings

Top RankAnthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 achieved the number one ranking with an overall score of 5.79.

Cost LeaderOpenAI: GPT-4o-mini

GPT-4o-mini offers significantly lower cost-per-output token compared to its competitor.

Instruction FollowingAnthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 4.5 outperformed in strict adherence to coding instructions.

Specifications

SpecOpenAI: GPT-4o-miniAnthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5
Provideropenaianthropic
Context Length128K200K
Input Price (per 1M tokens)$0.15$1.00
Output Price (per 1M tokens)$0.60$5.00
Max Output Tokens16,38464,000
Tierstandardadvanced

Our Verdict

Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 is the superior model for coding performance, delivering higher accuracy and better instruction following. While OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini is more cost-effective, it does not match the depth of reasoning provided by the top-ranked Claude Haiku 4.5.

Overview

In the rapidly evolving landscape of lightweight LLMs, choosing the right model for developer workflows is critical. This comparative report analyzes OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini vs Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5, focusing specifically on their coding capabilities as assessed by 10 independent evaluators. By examining performance metrics under a standardized coding suite, we provide clarity on which model is better suited for your production pipelines.

Benchmark Results

The evaluation was conducted using a rigorous comparative ranking methodology. Below is the performance summary for these models:

ModelRankOverall ScoreAccuracyInstruction Following
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.515.795.795.79
OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini24.214.214.21

Criteria Breakdown

The evaluation focused on two primary pillars of coding performance: Accuracy and Instruction Following. In the context of the OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini vs Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 comparison, Anthropic's model secured the top position with an overall score of 5.79. This suggests a higher level of reliability when generating complex code structures or adhering to specific architectural constraints defined by the prompts.

While OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini trailed with a score of 4.21, it remains a highly competitive option for tasks where cost-efficiency is prioritized over maximum reasoning depth.

Cost & Latency

For developers, the balance between model performance and infrastructure cost is paramount. The following table details the economic and speed metrics captured during the evaluation:

ModelAvg Latency (ms)Cost per Output TokenTotal Cost (USD)
OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini720$0.001006$0.000323
Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5N/A$0.006206$0.004878

OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini demonstrates significant advantages in cost-per-token efficiency, making it an ideal candidate for high-volume, repetitive coding tasks. Conversely, Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5, while carrying a higher price point, provides superior output quality, effectively trading off cost for reduced debugging time and higher code correctness.

Use Cases

  • OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini: Best for high-throughput applications, automated code linting, simple script generation, and environments where budget constraints are the primary driver.
  • Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5: Recommended for complex refactoring, feature implementation, and scenarios where the cost of a hallucination or logic error exceeds the increased cost per token.

Verdict

When comparing OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini vs Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 for coding tasks, the decision depends on your specific tolerance for error versus cost. Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 is the clear performance winner in this evaluation, demonstrating superior logic and adherence to instructions. However, OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini remains an excellent, budget-friendly alternative for less complex automation tasks.

Backed by real data

View the Full Evaluation Report

See every response, score, and evaluator judgment behind this comparison. All data from PeerLM's blind evaluation pipeline.

View Report

Run your own Monitor

Compare OpenAI: GPT-4o-mini and Anthropic: Claude Haiku 4.5 on sampled production prompts, with frozen criteria and inspectable evidence.

Start a Monitor

Get a free managed report

We'll run a full evaluation with your real prompts and deliver a detailed recommendation. Free for qualified teams.

Request Report

Methodology

Evaluated using PeerLM's blind evaluation pipeline with 4 responses per model across 2 criteria.