Claude Haiku 5.5 vs Microsoft Phi-4

Anthropic · US  |  Microsoft · 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 Microsoft Phi-4 for strong reasoning for a small 14b open-weight model or mit-licensed — fully self-hostable at no per-token cost. Choose Microsoft Phi-4 if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Claude Haiku 5.5 if you want a managed API.

Claude Haiku 5.5 (Anthropic) and Microsoft Phi-4 (Microsoft) 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. Microsoft Phi-4 is microsoft's MIT-licensed 14B open model — strong reasoning for its size and very cheap, but a tiny 16K context and text-only. 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

Side-by-side specs

SpecClaude Haiku 5.5Microsoft Phi-4
ProviderAnthropic (US) Microsoft (US)
ReleasedOctober 7, 2026 January 10, 2025
Context window1M tokens (~1,500 pages) 16K (~25 pages)
Price (in/out)$0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens $0.07/$0.14 per 1M tokens
Open weight?No — API only Yes — self-hostable
Modalitiestext, image, code text, code
SWE-Bench VerifiedNot published Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1MNot 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 61× more than Microsoft Phi-4's 16K in a single prompt.

First Haiku-class model with an adjustable 'effort' setting to trade off cost, latency, and intelligence

Claude Haiku 5.5

Microsoft Phi-4 is comparatively weak here — an early-2025 small model, outclassed on hard tasks by 2026 flagships

Anthropic's cheapest small model yet — runs about 75% cheaper on average than Haiku 4.5

Claude Haiku 5.5

Microsoft Phi-4 is comparatively weak here — a tiny 16K context — by far the smallest window in this comparison

Strong reasoning for a small 14B open-weight model

Microsoft Phi-4

Open weights make this possible at all — Claude Haiku 5.5 is API-only, so it cannot leave the vendor's servers.

MIT-licensed — fully self-hostable at no per-token cost

Microsoft Phi-4

At $0.07/$0.14 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Haiku 5.5 ($0.1/$0.5 per 1M tokens), and that gap compounds at volume.

Runs on modest or local hardware

Microsoft Phi-4

Microsoft's MIT-licensed 14B open model — strong reasoning for its size and very cheap, but a tiny 16K context and text-only — and it runs cheaper at $0.07/$0.14 per 1M tokens.

Lowest cost at scale

Microsoft Phi-4

At $0.07/$0.14 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 61× larger than Microsoft Phi-4's 16K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.

Which should you pick?

A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume

→ Microsoft Phi-4

At $0.07/$0.14 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Haiku 5.5, 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

→ Microsoft Phi-4

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 strong reasoning for a small 14b open-weight model

→ Microsoft Phi-4

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.

Microsoft Phi-4: where it fits

Microsoft's MIT-licensed 14B open model — strong reasoning for its size and very cheap, but a tiny 16K context and text-only. Released January 10, 2025 by Microsoft, it is built for strong reasoning for a small 14B open-weight model, mIT-licensed — fully self-hostable at no per-token cost, runs on modest or local hardware, and very cheap hosted inference at about $0.07/$0.14.

Its trade-offs: a tiny 16K context — by far the smallest window in this comparison, text only — no image, audio or video input, an early-2025 small model, outclassed on hard tasks by 2026 flagships, and no first-party per-token API; hosted prices are third-party. At $0.07 in / $0.14 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. Microsoft Phi-4 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 Microsoft Phi-4 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 pricing

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Haiku 5.5 or Microsoft Phi-4 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 Microsoft Phi-4 leans toward strong reasoning for a small 14b open-weight model, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.

Which is cheaper, Claude Haiku 5.5 or Microsoft Phi-4?

Microsoft Phi-4 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 16K, about 61× 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 Microsoft Phi-4 together?

Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Haiku 5.5, Microsoft Phi-4 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 Microsoft Phi-4?

Claude Haiku 5.5 — released October 7, 2026, about 21 months after Microsoft Phi-4.

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.