Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude 3.5 Sonnet #132 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Qwen3.5 397B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 3.5 Sonnet; 53 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 53
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 3.5 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 47.74. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 1.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 59.4% to 88.4%. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 4.2x on output cost alone. Claude 3.5 Sonnet gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude 3.5 Sonnet1.6 | Margin→ 89.0 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Coding | Claude 3.5 Sonnet49.0 | Margin→ 17.5 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Knowledge | Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4 | Margin← 2.8 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Agentic | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Reasoning | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Multilingual | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 59.4%B 88.4%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 29GPQA: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 59.4%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 49%B 76.2%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 27.2SWE-bench Verified: Claude 3.5 Sonnet scored 49%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet$3 input / $15 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude 3.5 SonnetNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude 3.5 Sonnet200K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Claude 3.5 Sonnet lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude 3.5 Sonnet wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 59.4% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 2.069% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 0.000% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 47.74. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 59.4% and 88.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.4 versus 56.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 49. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 1.6. Claude 3.5 Sonnet stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
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.