If you pay for an AI research tool through Anthropic's API, how much would moving a recurring document review from Haiku 4.5 to 5.5 actually save? A Claude subscription price won't answer that question. Neither will applying the new token rate to last month's token count.
Start with a request you'd want to keep running: perhaps comparing exchange rules against a set of research notes. Count the whole prompt sent to the API, including the instructions and any conversation or tool definitions sent with the material. An uploaded file's length alone doesn't tell you that count. Use Haiku 5.5's token counter: Anthropic says the same input text produces approximately 30% more tokens than on 4.5, with the increase depending on the content.
That count determines which prices belong in the estimate. In the October 7 announcement, prompts up to 100,000 tokens cost $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. Above 100,000, those rates are $0.50 and $2.50. Both tiers are below Haiku 4.5's $1 input and $5 output rates, but a request that crosses the boundary needs the higher pair, including for its answer.
Then run a representative review and compare its total API cost with the old version doing the same job. Include cache reads and writes where used, and billed output, including thinking. The migration guide says adaptive thinking is now on by default. Recounting the input alone leaves that part of the comparison unfinished.
Keep the research question and the standard for a usable answer the same. If a cheaper response needs another call to finish the review, include that call too. The result would give you a cost for completing this recurring review, and a basis for deciding whether to move it. The published rates alone don't establish that saving.
Sources:
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/models/haiku-5-5/migration-guide
Photo: Zoshua Colah / Unsplash. Library photograph used as editorial context.
Start with a request you'd want to keep running: perhaps comparing exchange rules against a set of research notes. Count the whole prompt sent to the API, including the instructions and any conversation or tool definitions sent with the material. An uploaded file's length alone doesn't tell you that count. Use Haiku 5.5's token counter: Anthropic says the same input text produces approximately 30% more tokens than on 4.5, with the increase depending on the content.
That count determines which prices belong in the estimate. In the October 7 announcement, prompts up to 100,000 tokens cost $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.50 per million output tokens. Above 100,000, those rates are $0.50 and $2.50. Both tiers are below Haiku 4.5's $1 input and $5 output rates, but a request that crosses the boundary needs the higher pair, including for its answer.
Then run a representative review and compare its total API cost with the old version doing the same job. Include cache reads and writes where used, and billed output, including thinking. The migration guide says adaptive thinking is now on by default. Recounting the input alone leaves that part of the comparison unfinished.
Keep the research question and the standard for a usable answer the same. If a cheaper response needs another call to finish the review, include that call too. The result would give you a cost for completing this recurring review, and a basis for deciding whether to move it. The published rates alone don't establish that saving.
Sources:
https://www.anthropic.com/claude-haiku-5-5
https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/models/haiku-5-5/migration-guide
Photo: Zoshua Colah / Unsplash. Library photograph used as editorial context.