MAI-Code-1-Flash

Dave Citron here, from the MAI team. Thanks for the feedback, we're getting the model card updated to call out 5B active parameters (137B total).

On benchmarks: in the same VS Code harness, MAI-Code-1-Flash scored 51.2% on SWE-bench Pro vs. Haiku's 35.2% which we see as a pretty big leap. But going forward, we'll include additional models in our benchmarks, including models like Qwen 3.6 and Gemma 4.

Qwen is definitely the model to beat as of Mid 2026. While I didn't benchmark with SWE as my use cases are OpenClaw [1]. I found both Qwen 3.6 35B A3B and more impressively Qwen 3.5 122B A10B starting to be competitive with closed flash models. The NVFP4 quant of the latter is what I'm running now on DGX.

[1] https://srinathh.medium.com/mid-size-local-models-are-now-co...

The take away is that this model is a smaller model that competes with Haiku, I would hope they come out with a "Sonnet" competing model, then Opus. I have been wondering why Microsoft is kind of "sleeping" on offering models they themselves have made on Copilot, maybe it was part of their deal with OpenAI? Not sure.

> 137B-A5B

Yeah, not a 5B param model as the earlier title implied!

So what other models use less than half of Haiku's tokens while providing higher success rate?

While I agree directionally, I'll caveat that "cost per token" != "cost per task". In the case of Qwen3.6 it tends to think 1.6x more than Haiku, so the cost of Haiku on the same tasks tends to only be about double. More detail from comparing their Artificial Analysis metrics:

  Qwen3.6-35B-A3B   vs   Claude Haiku 4.5
    reasoning mode · AA Intelligence Index v4.0
  
  46.0 ┤   ↖ better — cheaper · smarter · faster
       │
       │
  44.0 ┤     ╭─────╮
       │     │  ●  │ Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
       │     ╰─────╯
  42.0 ┤
       │
       │
  40.0 ┤
       │
       │
  38.0 ┤                                       ╭───╮
       │                      Claude Haiku 4.5 │ ○ │
       │                                       ╰───╯
  36.0 ┤
       └┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬─────────┬────────┬
        $200    $300      $400      $500      $600    $700
  
    x → cost to run the index (USD)        lower is better
    y → AA intelligence index              higher is better
  
    bubble area = output speed (tokens / sec)
          ╭─────╮                  ╭───╮
          │  ●  │ Qwen ~196 t/s    │ ○ │ Haiku ~93 t/s
          ╰─────╯                  ╰───╯
  
    ┌─────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬───────────┐
    │ model               │ AA index │ run cost │ out speed │
    ├─────────────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼───────────┤
    │ Qwen3.6-35B-A3B    ●│   43.5   │   $280   │  196 t/s  │
    │ Claude Haiku 4.5   ○│   37.1   │   $620   │   93 t/s  │
    └─────────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴───────────┘


    COST PER TOKEN   ≠   COST PER TASK  
    output tokens per index run:
       Haiku 4.5    87.3M   (79.3M reasoning + 8.0M answer)
       Qwen3.6     143.2M   (131.7M reasoning + 11.5M answer)
       → Qwen emits 1.64× more output
  
    ── output speed (tokens / sec) ──────────  raw rate · higher = faster
       Qwen3.6     100%   ~196 t/s
       Haiku 4.5   ~47%   ~93 t/s
                                                  → Qwen ~2.1× faster per token
  
          ╎   1.64× more tokens  <  2.1× faster rate
          ▼
  
    ── solution speed (per finished answer) ──  higher = faster
       Qwen3.6     100%
       Haiku 4.5   ~78%
                                                  → Qwen ~1.3× FASTER to a solution
  
    SCORECARD
                            intelligence    cost / task     speed to solution
     Qwen3.6-35B-A3B        43.5            $280            ~1.3× faster 
     Claude Haiku 4.5       37.1            $620            (slower)
  
     → Qwen wins all three. The reasoning blow-up (1.64×) is smaller than
       the raw-speed edge (2.1×), so Qwen stays ahead per task.

[dead]

I use larger models to organize work into a topologically sorted task graph and pin smaller models to the tasks depending on the complexity with a larger model evaluating the work and patching where necessary. This uses haiku quite often for routine work. I’m able to do multi hour highly complex work with superior results and a much lower bill as a result by doing this, with a parent orchestrator able to do a massive labor within a single context window by effectively organizing work and reviewing quality and integrating where needed. I don’t use haiku directly, but it’s often 30-40% of any major efforts token use. This further improves time to completion as well as cost - but I find haiku is better at following literal instructions and plans without “second guessing,” while opus class models second guess in their thinking constantly.

As such, haiku isn’t a waste of my time, it saves enormous amounts of time for me. But I spent a large amount of time building the orchestration system up front and iterating on it to get here. Interestingly i found my experience as a director and later a distinguished engineer gave me the tools to build it and get it working well and reliably end to end - the dynamics of multi agent workflows of varying capability is not a lot different than the dynamics of a 1000 engineer organization.

I've been doing benchmarking of various models for finding hard security bugs, and my faith in Haiku (and Sonnet, even) has dropped precipitously in the process. Self-hosted Qwen 3.6 27B consistently outperforms both for finding security bugs, which was a shocking result. I expected Qwen to be around Haiku level, maybe a little worse, and I definitely expected it to be worse than Sonnet.

And, DeepSeek and MiMo perform much better than Haiku and Sonnet, near Opus/GPT 5.5 levels, at a fraction of the cost.

There's seemingly no reason to ever use Haiku or Sonnet, if you're not getting it for free or as part of a subscription (that you don't usually saturate).

Almost exactly the same story here. I've also had little to no refusals from DeepSeek, with it's Chinese values meaning substantially less friction when it comes to things like reverse engineering, finding copyrighted files, working with dubiously-sourced source code, et cetera. I don't think I'd go back to Copilot even if they dropped prices by 90%.

Yeah, seems like this is in the range of Qwen 3.6, Gemma 4, Nemotron 3 Super, and the like. There are lot of models, including much smaller cheaper ones (like Qwen 3.6 35B-A3B), that are similarly competitive with Haiku. I can run these on my laptop, I don't need to rent them from Microsoft.

I suppose if you're reeling at the new Copilot bill but want to stay in their ecosystem, this gives you something to use, but for most folks, there's a plethora of better options.

The $20/month ChatGPT plan that comes with codex is good value. Even just have premium ChatGPT is nice. I get rate limited regularly but it still lets me do most things.

The small stuff has their place. I have this safari extension and needed a way to quickly title people's chat histories. Haiku is the fast cheap thing to come up with decent titles of blocks of text. I feel like there's a bunch of those little things lying around you need a model for. I'm even finding Apple's Foundation Model is super useful for stuff like that. Even summarizing an article. It's like equally awful at doing it, but gets enough done to still be useful as a way to be like "oh yeah, this article is actually worth reading"

Agreed. Seems like this could have been a nice model if we would still be in the old GitHub Copilot free request/ premium multiplier mode. It could have been a good compromise to somehow reign in the costs for Microsoft.

But with Copilot now just being paying per-token prices I don't see how this is competitive with Chinese models.

It is probably telling you can't find the costs in the announcement. Because Input $0.75 Cached input $0.075 Output $4.50 might be competitive with Haiku, but nobody in their right mind uses Haiku and Anthropic has abandoned it chasing the tokenmaxers who aren't thinking about budgets.

So I guess they are aiming for corporate customers that are bound to Microsoft through compliance approval that will soon start seeing their budgets explode that have to find some corporate compromise.

Won’t (presumably) all the market actors converge on similar pricing? If OpenAI stopped operating on subsidies and charge the true costs and their most token hungry customers are the ones that switch to Anthropic and others, then their pricing model switch will also be around the corner.

Unless of course we’re thinking Copilot will be more expensive than others longer term. But is that a reasonable assumption?

Haiku does quite well if given a detailed plan. That means much more detail than you otherwise would, but you can still save over e.g. having Opus or Sonnet do everything by having them expand their initial plans into more specific levels of detail and feed it to Haiku (or similar level models).

I personally wouldn't use models that class directly, though - I'd use them in a harness as a "backend" for more capable models. And Haiku itself, as opposed to other smaller models, is still expensive.

If you use claude-code Haiku is used under the hood for certain task. I'm not sure what it is, but there's some kind of routing that goes to Haiku automatically.

Makes sense as part of a larger coding workflow, especially if it’s fast. Using a trillion parameter model to figure out how to call a targeted edit tool or generate a commit message is a waste. Also narrow tasks like “make the background darker” or “rename this function and update callers”

I've been having really good results with DeepSeek-v4-flash, qwen-3.6-moe, and the older gimini-3-flash-preview. (recent geminis suck hard)

Small models are more than enough for the majority of tasks these days. Plan and review with the bigger ones, let the little ones explore and implement.

OpenCode Go is $10/month for the open weight models with nice quotas: https://opencode.ai/go

What application/UI are you using deep seek flash high on? Still copilot or something else

> "GitHub Copilot had competitive pricing until yesterday when they changed from per-request to one of the most expensive per-token quotas. Seriously, take a look at their burning subreddit for some laughs"

AI is expensive and it has been heavily subsidized. I you think $20/mo for Codex/Claude flat vs a more usage based model you're in for a shock. Especially once these companies go public and have to meet investor expectations.

> They are cute but for serious coding they tend to waste your expensive time.

90% of corporate job tasks are trivial enough that Haiku can handle them.

Just this morning I have been implementing a reprint functionality in our warehouse management system, which needed to print again carrier labels and delivery notes for a specific order.

It essentially had to do the same workflow of print, but instead of generating and uploading the pdfs, it only had to fetch and print them.

Took Opus 4.8 high 24m1 seconds and 87k tokens. Took Haiku 6m30 seconds and half the tokens.

So not really sure what do you mean by "wasting your expensive time" here. I think you really don't experiment with these tools and assume higher effort, bigger model => time saved, but that's true only when tasks are much bigger and complex enough that a smaller/less precise model would fail or land work of much lower quality.

I really hope one day there is something like Opus 4.8 but with Cerebras' speed -- they reach over 1,000t/s on gpt-oss-120b but that model is seemingly not even properly trained for tool calling. But watching it slam out several entire screens of thinking/reasoning per second is amazing. I'd love that with Opus quality.

I wonder when THEY make it illegal to vote with your wallet.

I am using Opus 4.x at work, and these "smaller" (20-80bn, 3-4bn active) models at home. Unfortunately there is no comparison, yet (IMHO anyway).

With Opus I can work, trust its designs, architecture suggestions, and code changes, even in a complex code base.

The smaller models seem to "try". They work for smaller tasks, but for more complex task it's often more work than doing it myself.

I wish it were different, and maybe in a year or two it will be.

>Is the play to plan/design/architect with a heavier model than delegate structured tasks to these smaller ones?

always has been

claude code has opusplan — uses opus while in plan mode, switches to sonnet for execution.

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#opusplan-model-...

edit: you can make it work with sonnet for planning, and haiku for execution, or any other combination you fancy to work with.

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#control-the-mod...

Yes. Divide execution of a change into separate responsibilities. Designate the main chat as the "orchestrator", Opus. You designate a goal, then tell it to grind until it gets there using the following sub-agents in sequence:

1. Step execution (Sonnet): Work for 30 minutes / 100k tokens at the direction of the Orchestrator

2. Review (Opus): Scrutinize the previous step's work for errors, fidelity to the instructions, fix those and record opportunities to improve the agent configuration + tools to reduce errors and token usage (record those to a file).

3. Self-improvement (Opus): Implement the highest impact self-improvement items that don't require user intervention.

Repeat: Until orchestrator session token budget exhausted (set it to 1M or whatever).

The underlying rationale is to keep each step manageable to maximize adherence to instructions and minimize cost (even cached tokens cost something). Prompt tokens are much cheaper than generated, so to the extent Opus mostly reviews rather than drives that saves a lot too. Self-improvement steps are very expensive but the improvements compound, if you're going to run a job for days or weeks it's way more expensive not to do them.

Edit: I do this in Claude Code with the Anthropic models as well as Qwen family models for offline use.

I use Gemini 3 Flash, I've seen the Claude Code setups, bullish on Anthropic people are driving up tokens but I am able to produce outcomes with a fraction of the money.

Unless you are token rich, you'll have to find a way pretty soon.

For tasks (like kubernetes, linux, reports, database exploration and such) I use GLM5.1. Faster is actually smarter in those cases. And much cheaper too.

Opus 4.8 is for the unknown. Things I don't know how to do myself.

Because the Haiku model is quite cheap but doesn't screw up too often I used it for interactive coding for my existing projects on the older copilot plans.

For simple features I don't have a full plan worked out. I write a bit of code then tell the model in a short line prompt what it should do. Sometimes I put temporary comments in the code to give it guidance. Generally if the code change is within a file or package, Haiku is good enough follow what you ask and not mess up too much. I also have skills created over time to give it guidance. There were some months when I used GitHub copilot where I had excess credits available at the end of the month I frantically try to use up.

Even the AI code completions can be pretty good on their own. Sometimes I write some temporary comments describing what the code should do and just press Tab-Tab-Tab and the entire function is done.

I think there is a tendency for people to go for the advanced models thinking they we screw up less but if you really understand the code its easier to interactively do it with a lesser model.

Claude code itself spins a lot of its subagents with Haiku. The model has low hallucination rate, so it is great for exploration tasks. I guess this is what the best purpose of this model here will be as well. Which is a lot of tokens - many tasks spin multiple exploration agents before the planning or fixing, that is then just a few tool calls.

I was wondering the same. I guess it makes sense to use a heavy weight model to make the entire design and split the work so that smaller models (possibly local one?) would then do the coding... But how would I even do that? I'm using Claude Code. Would I need support for this within the harness ?

Not sure if considered it's considered small in any way, but DeepSeek V4 Flash is really decent.

From my experience, smaller models like Haïku 4.5 have indeed shown very convincing results on specific, scoped tasks (themselves generated by a more capable model such as Opus 4.6). We use this kind of workflows in production to optimize speed, efficiency, and costs.

i used to use opus for everything, thats not an option once you move to a multi agent system unless you're working on like high end research. I could easily spend 3k a day if i was using opus as just a normal dev.

As we build a better and better harness and better feedback/verifiers we're switching more to 3.5 flash. I think chinese models would work too, but we cant use those atm.

Generally theres a coordinator running opus and an ever growing set of skills and subagents that take actions using weaker models and output feedback to the coordinator opus.

I'm pretty convinced at this point we're past the level of intelligence needed for most tasks most devs do and that will trend down as we better build harnesses for our own codebases.

Implicitly, yes. A lot of harnesses will invoke small models to do small changes, saving time and tokens.

plan using opus execute using local

I keep trying to, because I really want to make qwen 3.6 35b work for end implementation of a fleshed out spec (mostly for local data privacy reasons).

...but I spend so much more time correcting it, or building pipelines to try, retry, and converge, that it's rarely worthwhile for me in either time or $ spent vs Opus.

I use it for smaller changes that I need to make, mainly on UI fixes or some easy logic fixes.

In DeepSWE anything from Antropic is a whole class lower than what's achievable with gpt-5.5

So by using Opus you are using "smaller" model. Well, not really smaller, just worse. The actual smaller models can at least be faster.

I actually find planning/design easier with a smaller model and implementation with a larger one. I'm mostly manually working with the model on planning and design and decisions are mine and smaller models are faster. And when there's a clear design/wayforward, the bigger models are usually better at understanding the overall context and applying the specific patch they were assigned to. I call it the 1-2 punch system where you do the first light punch then the harder punch when its actually important to hit properly. I know it goes against the standard of throwing the biggest model at design but I personally experience the bigger models try to do TOO MUCH and take a lot of time which is something that's not good in the design/arch/boilterplate phase.

[flagged]

[dead]

Probably vibe coded. I use StopTheMadness to prevent it.

Immediately noticed that and then closed out.

from what I understand, it's because unlike the other models, MAI models haven't yet fine-tuned against the synthetic datasets specifically designed to boost the benchmark scores.

It’s about bang for buck. That high a score for 5B params is pretty good, nigh unbelievable a short while ago.

It is my belief that smaller models will get better and better, and even cloud SOTA models will shrink.

Yet another reason the current buildout will feel like the railroads.

Thanks! I've changed the top link to the blog post and put the other links in the toptext.

4.5 is still the latest Haiku model

some kind of scroll hijack going on for sure, feels terrible on firefox+macos

That's not accurate. Take a look at the paper to see what it is trained on! And specifically decontamination is called out in A.4

https://microsoft.ai/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/main_2026060...

What is your evidence for this claim?

Tomorrow NVIDIA will publish Nemotron 3 Ultra, which will be the biggest open weights LLM from a US company (550B parameters).

The early testers have confirmed that it is much better than all earlier US open weights models, but it is not as good as the best Chinese open weights models.

While Nemotron 3 Ultra is not the smartest open weights LLM, it is well optimized for fast inference, so it is much faster than the other LLMs of the same size.

In any case I believe that it is very good to have an additional option in big open weights LLMs, because until now all existing models have shown that even if some model is definitely better on average than another, the weaker model can still be better in some particular applications.

With open weights models, you can afford to try multiple LLMs for the more important tasks and then choose the best solution.

:(

I was hoping Microsoft would make it open weights, as they have done for years with the Phi models.

The era of big tech releasing models into the wild might be over, which IMO is counter-productive, as we are shifting from "the model is the product" to "the harness is the product"

Have you tried system design with LLMs? I find them pretty good at suggesting 5 architectures for a problem and then iterating on the solutions.

Even if I had no idea, going with the default suggestion would not be a terrible mistake, assuming you did describe your requirements relatively well.

Maybe the next Windows update will change This PC back to MAI Computer. ;)

Fix:

  (() => {
  const KILL = ['wheel', 'mousewheel', 'DOMMouseScroll', 'touchmove'];
  const block = e => e.stopImmediatePropagation();
  for (const t of KILL) {
    window.addEventListener(t, block, { capture: true, passive: true });
    document.addEventListener(t, block, { capture: true, passive: true });
  }
  document.documentElement.classList.remove('lenis','lenis-smooth','lenis-scrolling','lenis-stopped');
  console.log('Scroll hijack disabled — native scrolling restored.');
  })();

Yeah this website is horrendous to use. What were they thinking?

[dead]

> "It is nearly free on the max plans"

is a funny oxymoron

To understand microsoft IA problems right now observer the parent comment. It is literally false [1] but somehow creates a whole story of Microsoft inaptitude.

[1] https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-02-mai-code-1-flash-is...

And as I am on holiday today I will try to help them out:

                   GPT-5.4 mini Haiku 4.5 MAI-Code

SWE-Bench Pro 54.4 % 35.2% 51.2%

Terminal-Bench 2.0 60.0 % 41.6% 54.8%

Source: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5-4-mini-and-nano/

Meta recently launched Muse Spark [1] and they themselves compare against Claude Opus 4.6 Max.

Here Microsoft is comparing against Claude Haiku, the smallest and least capable model from Anthropic.

[1] https://ai.meta.com/blog/introducing-muse-spark-msl/

Wait… I think he has moltbook IP as well that he can scale up.

Seriously tho, wtf is going on over at Meta? Anyone working there currently want to describe the vibe of the org when it comes to being a frontier company?

From https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting.

Microsoft has been releasing LLMs for years.

Definitely vibed microslop, the giveaway is the broken header and scrolling on mobile.

Brand guidelines and web design pretty much don't exist any more as far as I can tell. Gotta get it out yesteday, and the only way to do that is vibe coding, styling be damned.

That's neither Microsoft nor Anthropic design. It's from their acquisition of Inflection AI. Even Copilot mobile app design is basically what was Inflection's design

Thank you! This website is dreadful for accessibility and usability.

maybe it was coded by Claude

i think it is AI generated.

This is needlessly embarrassing, seems like a small thing, but it makes them look... desperate?

A little to minimalist - only a few hundred words on entire page!

> I always prioritize speed over raw intelligence for flash models.

This model might have a perfect speed:

    for i in range(100):
      print(random.choices(words))

even worse on mobile

MAI? Ma die, mai!

(gestures wildly while changing lanes in his Fiat 500)

It claims that, then promptly proceeds to showcase a bunch of benchmarks.

It works if you can prove it, but you know, Microsoft didnt

You aren't wrong, the field is moving to a world where we do less in the code editor, so autocomplete is not needed any more. I've only manually edited code a few times in the last month. Haven't used autocomplete in 6+ months since I left Copilot to build my own agent harness (I'm now mainly using OpenCode)

Claude opus 4.6 scores 51.9% on the same benchmark. Microsoft's result is quite good.

51% does not mean it randomly gets things wrong half the time.

These things can be useful if you can accurately predict which tasks they will reliably do, and which they will usually fail on. Then you can get much more reliable work from them.

Please share the script

Please share

They're comparing to Haiku, not Opus. Haiku is currently at 4.5.

Even if it were Opus, comparing to a version number makes for an interesting snapshot of time comparison: if you knew how a model performed at whatever time in was in vogue, you can say "well, it looks like Model X is about 6 months/1 year/etc. behind the frontier SOTA" - which is exactly the discussion that happens in the open-weight/local LLM space. (interesting, MAI-Code-1-Flash does not appear to be such an open-weight model, following the western trend of locking models up)

Latest Haiku (smallest Anthropic Model) is version 4.5, they haven't released a new version, hence the comparison to that.