Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude 4 Sonnet vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

42.79/100
Margin
14.2pts
winning →
57.01/100
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude 4 Sonnet #158 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude 4 Sonnet and Qwen3.5 397B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude 4 Sonnet; 41 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
14
Claude 4 Sonnet only
2
Qwen3.5 397B only
41
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude 4 Sonnet only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 42.79. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude 4 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 4 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 scores and score margins for Claude 4 Sonnet and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryClaude 4 SonnetΔQwen3.5 397B
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet72.7Margin← 6.2Qwen3.5 397B66.5
AgenticClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.5
ReasoningClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B63.2
KnowledgeClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B56.6
MathClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B90.6
MultilingualClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
MultimodalClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6
Inst. FollowingClaude 4 SonnetNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude 4 SonnetB · Qwen3.5 397B

  1. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 72.7%B 76.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 3.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude 4 Sonnet scored 72.7%; 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.

MetricClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude 4 Sonnet$3 input / $15 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputQwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude 4 Sonnet40 tok/sQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sQwen3.5 397B has the higher measured throughput.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude 4 Sonnet1.33 sQwen3.5 397B2.44 sClaude 4 Sonnet reaches the first token sooner.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude 4 Sonnet200KQwen3.5 397B128KClaude 4 Sonnet lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
τ²-bench resultsSource 52.3%95.6%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Gert LabsSource 39.66%46.76%Qwen3.5 397B leads
JobBenchSource 18.4%—Not comparable
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
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 —962Not comparable
CodingClaude 4 Sonnet wins
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72.7%76.2%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 37.3%42.0%Qwen3.5 397B leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —83.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.9%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —48.2%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
AA-LCRSource 44.3%65.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
CritPtSource 1.1%1.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
LongBench v2Source —63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource —68.7%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 25.5%33.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 68.3%89.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-HLESource 4.0%27.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -9.2%-29.8%Claude 4 Sonnet leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 22.4%31.4%Qwen3.5 397B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 40.8%89.1%Claude 4 Sonnet leads
GPQASource —88.4%Not comparable
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
Math
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
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
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
AA-MMMU-ProSource 62.4%77.3%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1175—Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —88.6%Not comparable
CharXivSource —80.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.7%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —65.6%Not comparable
V*Source —95.8%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude 4 SonnetQwen3.5 397BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 45.4%78.8%Qwen3.5 397B leads
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Claude 4 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 42.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 72.7% and 76.2%.

Which is better for coding, Claude 4 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude 4 Sonnet has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72.7 versus 66.5. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 22, 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.