Fronset Benchmark

Claude Haiku 5.5 at a glance

Good enough on 22/54 tasks at the Balanced step. Best value on 6 tasks. Best fit for: Infrastructure & Utility, Social & Promotional Content.

Provider
Anthropic
Model name
claude-haiku-5-5
What the steps mean
Cost mode:
Qualifies on
22 / 54 tasks (at the Balanced step)
Best value on
6 tasks

Cost vs quality across all tasks

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Profiled Document Structure Extraction — quality 8.35, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Metadata Paragraph Rewriting — quality 7.99, 1.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionBench Hypothesis Post Generation — quality 8.70, 1.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionCapability Category Matching — quality 8.59, 2.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPromotional Campaign Generation — quality 7.49, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Engagement Opportunity Triage — quality 8.54, 3.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPublic Response Generation — quality 7.64, 1.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Labeling — quality 8.01, 3.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSocial Post Portfolio Selection — quality 8.64, 1.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionProfile Pool Matching — quality 8.46, 1.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionContent To Image Prompt Generation — quality 8.55, 1.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionVoice Profile Generation — quality 8.80, 1.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionVisual Theme Configuration Generation — quality 8.43, 1.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionStructured Content Summarization — quality 8.16, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Claim Continuity Classification — quality 8.01, 2.4x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPersona Policy Eligibility Check — quality 8.66, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Report Executive Summary Generation — quality 7.75, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Profiled Document Analysis — quality 8.33, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Language Identification — quality 9.84, 2.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionGenerated Content Relevance Scoring — quality 7.97, 2.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionResearch Query Validation — quality 8.46, 2.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPromotional Message Generation — quality 8.02, 1.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the Balanced step are plotted.

Per-task breakdown

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Structured Content Summarization ★Content Summarization & Synthesis92%HIGHbest value
Profiled Document Analysis ★Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions91%MEDIUMbest value
Profiled Document Structure Extraction ★Structured Data & Fact Extraction94%MEDIUMbest value
Persona Policy Eligibility Check ★Relevance, Classification & Matching94%HIGHbest value
Report Executive Summary Generation ★Content Summarization & Synthesis90%HIGHbest value
Promotional Campaign Generation ★Social & Promotional Content93%MEDIUMbest value
Voice Profile GenerationLong-form Content Generation92%HIGH1x
Social Post Portfolio SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching99%RANKED1.1x
Bench Hypothesis Post GenerationSocial & Promotional Content99%HIGH1.1x
Promotional Message GenerationSocial & Promotional Content92%HIGH1.3x
Visual Theme Configuration GenerationLong-form Content Generation96%RANKED1.6x
Content To Image Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility96%RANKED1.6x
Metadata Paragraph RewritingInfrastructure & Utility96%HIGH1.7x
Profile Pool MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching97%MEDIUM1.9x
Public Response GenerationSocial & Promotional Content90%MEDIUM1.9x
Generated Content Relevance ScoringRelevance, Classification & Matching91%MEDIUM2.1x
Language IdentificationRelevance, Classification & Matching98%RANKED2.2x
Claim Continuity ClassificationRelevance, Classification & Matching92%MEDIUM2.4x
Capability Category MatchingRelevance, Classification & Matching96%MEDIUM2.4x
Research Query ValidationInfrastructure & Utility98%MEDIUM2.7x
Engagement Opportunity TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching96%HIGH3.7x
Topic Cluster LabelingTopic Organization & Clustering90%MEDIUM3.9x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that meets the quality step on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.