Skip to main content

Model comparison

Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

47.74/100
Margin
10.3pts
winning →
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
2
Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
2
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 58.01 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 6.4 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 2.069% to 8.481%.

Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Claude 3.5 Sonnet gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
CategoryClaude 3.5 SonnetΔQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
MathClaude 3.5 Sonnet1.6Margin 4.8Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4
CodingClaude 3.5 Sonnet49.0MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet59.4MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Claude 3.5 SonnetB · Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.069%B 8.481%
    Winner: Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Δ 6.4
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 2.069%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 3.5 SonnetNot availableQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 3.5 Sonnet200KQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128KClaude 3.5 Sonnet lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Coding
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 49%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
GPQASource 59.4%Not comparable
MathQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) wins
BenchmarkClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 2.069%8.481%Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%0.000%Tie
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 2.069% and 8.481%.

Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 6.4 versus 1.6. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 20, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.