Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Gemma 4 26B A4B
Anthropic · US | Google · US · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Haiku 5.5 for 5x the context window of haiku 4.5 (1m vs 200k tokens) and double the max output (128k vs 64k) or first haiku-class model with an adjustable 'effort' setting to trade off cost, latency, and intelligence. Pick Gemma 4 26B A4B for fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total) or near-31b-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost. Choose Gemma 4 26B A4B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Haiku 5.5 if you want a managed API.
Claude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic) and Gemma 4 26B A4B (Google) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Claude Haiku 5.5 is anthropic's October 7, 2026 small-model refresh — a 1M-token context window (up from 200K) at roughly 75% lower average cost than Haiku 4.5, priced at $0.10/$0.50 per million tokens. Gemma 4 26B A4B is an Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
- ▸Price: nearly identical — $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens vs $0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
- ▸Context window: Claude Haiku 5.5 holds 3.8× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
- ▸Recency: Claude Haiku 5.5 is the newer model by about 6 months (released October 7, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
| Spec | Claude Haiku 5.5 | Gemma 4 26B A4B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic (US) | Google (US) |
| Released | October 7, 2026 | April 2, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) | 256K (~393 pages) |
| Price (in/out) | $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens | $0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens |
| Open weight? | No — API only | Yes — self-hostable |
| Modalities | text, image, code | text, image, video, code |
| SWE-Bench Verified | Not published | Not published |
| MRCR v2 @ 1M | Not published | Not published |
Who wins what
5x the context window of Haiku 4.5 (1M vs 200K tokens) and double the max output (128K vs 64K)
Claude Haiku 5.5
Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K in a single prompt.
First Haiku-class model with an adjustable 'effort' setting to trade off cost, latency, and intelligence
Claude Haiku 5.5
At $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Gemma 4 26B A4B ($0.12/$0.37 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.
Anthropic's cheapest small model yet — runs about 75% cheaper on average than Haiku 4.5
Claude Haiku 5.5
Anthropic's October 7, 2026 small-model refresh — a 1M-token context window (up from 200K) at roughly 75% lower average cost than Haiku 4.5, priced at $0.10/$0.50 per million tokens — and it runs cheaper at $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens.
Fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total)
Gemma 4 26B A4B
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost — and its weights are open while Claude Haiku 5.5 is API-only.
Near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Gemma 4 26B A4B lists near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost among its strengths; Claude Haiku 5.5 does not.
Strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6)
Gemma 4 26B A4B
Claude Haiku 5.5 is comparatively weak here — as the smallest tier, trails both Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 on hard reasoning and open-ended work
Lowest cost at scale
Claude Haiku 5.5
At $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Claude Haiku 5.5
Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Gemma 4 26B A4B's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Claude Haiku 5.5
At $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Gemma 4 26B A4B, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Claude Haiku 5.5
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Claude Haiku 5.5 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is 5x the context window of haiku 4.5 (1m vs 200k tokens) and double the max output (128k vs 64k)
→ Claude Haiku 5.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total)
→ Gemma 4 26B A4B
That is its strongest area.
Claude Haiku 5.5: where it fits
Anthropic's October 7, 2026 small-model refresh — a 1M-token context window (up from 200K) at roughly 75% lower average cost than Haiku 4.5, priced at $0.10/$0.50 per million tokens. Released October 7, 2026 by Anthropic, it is built for 5x the context window of Haiku 4.5 (1M vs 200K tokens) and double the max output (128K vs 64K), first Haiku-class model with an adjustable 'effort' setting to trade off cost, latency, and intelligence, anthropic's cheapest small model yet — runs about 75% cheaper on average than Haiku 4.5, and over-refuses benign requests only 0.17% of the time on the API, down from Haiku 4.5's 0.44%.
Its trade-offs are real: pricing jumps roughly 5x beyond 100K-token prompts ($0.50/$2.50 per million vs the headline $0.10/$0.50), extended thinking can no longer be fully disabled — only dialed between low, medium, and high effort, and as the smallest tier, trails both Sonnet 5.5 and Opus 5.5 on hard reasoning and open-ended work. At $0.1 in / $0.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
Gemma 4 26B A4B: where it fits
An Apache-2.0 open MoE with 25.2B total but only 3.8B active parameters, delivering near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the inference cost. Released April 2, 2026 by Google, it is built for fast, cheap inference from a sparse MoE (3.8B active of 25.2B total), near-31B-dense quality at a fraction of the compute and memory-bandwidth cost, strong reasoning and coding (88.3% AIME 2026 no-tools, 77.1% LiveCodeBench v6), and multimodal input (text/image, plus video processed as frames up to 60s) with native function calling.
Its trade-offs: all 25.2B parameters must be loaded into memory even though only 3.8B are active per token, and 256K context trails 1M-token frontier rivals, and this variant has no audio input (audio is E2B/E4B/12B only). At $0.12 in / $0.37 out per million tokens, it sits in the budget price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Gemma 4 26B A4B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Claude Haiku 5.5 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
See pricingFrequently asked questions
Is Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for either model, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Haiku 5.5 leans toward 5x the context window of haiku 4.5 (1m vs 200k tokens) and double the max output (128k vs 64k) while Gemma 4 26B A4B leans toward fast, cheap inference from a sparse moe (3.8b active of 25.2b total), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Gemma 4 26B A4B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Claude Haiku 5.5 is API-metered at $0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Haiku 5.5 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Haiku 5.5 and Gemma 4 26B A4B together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Haiku 5.5, Gemma 4 26B A4B and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Gemma 4 26B A4B?
Claude Haiku 5.5 — released October 7, 2026, about 6 months after Gemma 4 26B A4B.
Related comparisons
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.