Updated October 17, 2026. Rank says Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public point estimate, 53.78 versus 41.16. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 6 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
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.
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public coding point estimate, 40 to 16.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public agentic point estimate, 34.4 to 21.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
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 Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
1 category rests on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
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.
LiveCodeBench (Vals)Coding
Normalized gap 44.8MMLU-Pro (Vals)Knowledge
Normalized gap 9.0SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 5.5Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 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.
| Category | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 21.4Supported · #107/128 | 34.4Supported · #83/128 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 13 public rows | Qwen3.6 Plus leads · intervals overlap |
| Coding | 16.8Supported · #126/150 | 40.0Supported · #66/150 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 4 vs 9 public rows | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Knowledge | 33.3Estimated · #141/184 | 53.4Supported · #66/184 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 2 vs 8 public rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 74.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 76.1#21/54 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 93.8#4/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 85.8#47/148 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 69.5#6/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 3 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
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.
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Claude Haiku 4.5 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Haiku 4.5
Qwen3.6 Plus
1M
Claude Haiku 4.5
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001
Claude API pricingQwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Haiku 4.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingQwen3.6 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Not sourced
Qwen3.6 Plus
Not sourced
Claude Haiku 4.5
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.6 Plus
Reasoning
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.6 Plus
Proprietary
Claude Haiku 4.5
2025-10-15
Qwen3.6 Plus
2026-04-02
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public point estimate, 53.78 versus 41.16. Their conditional score ranges overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public coding point estimate, 40 to 16.8, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 34.4 to 21.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
JobBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MazeBench
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Not directly comparable
Toolathlon
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Not directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
VulcanBench v3
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SWE-bench (Vals)
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MathVision
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
Not directly comparable
V*
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
GPQA
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Not directly comparable
HLE
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Not directly comparable
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,600+ readers.
Last updated October 17, 2026
