Agentic
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 37.7
- Supported · #126/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score, 62.29 versus 31.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
Share or export
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
2 Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
2 Shared
50 Qwen3.7 Plus only
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet only
- 2
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 50
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 53.1
- Estimated · #51/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 73.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 56.8
- Estimated · #50/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- 25.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.3
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.9
- #3/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 72.5
- #18/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 91.1
- #17/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.7 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 37.7Supported · #126/151 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 0 vs 11 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | 53.1Estimated · #51/183 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 56.8Estimated · #50/181 | Not comparableBenchAlign lane · 1 vs 7 public rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 25.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 78.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 78.9#3/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 72.5#18/48 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 91.1#17/120 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
GPQA
Knowledge
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 59.4%Qwen3.7 Plus: 90.3%Normalized gap 30.9Claude 3.5 Sonnet source Qwen3.7 Plus sourceSWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 49%Qwen3.7 Plus: 77.7%Normalized gap 28.7Claude 3.5 Sonnet source Qwen3.7 Plus source
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude 3.5 Sonnet
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet does not fit this workload in one request. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude 3.5 SonnetQwen3.7 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
200K
Qwen3.7 Plus
1M
API model ID
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not published
Qwen3.7 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
License
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
Proprietary
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Claude 3.5 Sonnet
2024-06-01
Qwen3.7 Plus
2026-06-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score, 62.29 versus 31.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence54 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus61.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus62.7%SourceNot directly comparable
BFCL v4
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus81.0%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude 3.5 Sonnet49%SourceQwen3.7 Plus77.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus57.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus75.8%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus41.1%SourceNot directly comparable
SciCode
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus89.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet59.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
GPQA-D
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus34.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus88.5%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus94.5%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus71.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet2.069%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet0.000%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus92.9%SourceNot directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Apex
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU-Pro
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus79%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus85.9%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus69.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus81.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus86.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus88.0%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude 3.5 Sonnet—Qwen3.7 Plus87.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score, 62.29 versus 31.93, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.
Which is better for coding, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen3.7 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.