Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Claude Haiku 4.5
63
1/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 6/8 categoriesClaude Haiku 4.5· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Haiku 4.5 only becomes the better choice if reasoning is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 63. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.9 against 48.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 67% to 90.4%. Claude Haiku 4.5 does hit back in reasoning, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Claude Haiku 4.5 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.80 input / $4.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6 Plus. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Haiku 4.5 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Haiku 4.5.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Claude Haiku 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 41% | 61.6% |
| BrowseComp | 62% | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | 57% | 62.5% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| HumanEval | 60% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 73.3% | 78.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 36% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | 46% | 56.6% |
| FLTEval | 23% | — |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & GroundedQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 82% | 78.8% |
| OfficeQA Pro | 74% | — |
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| ReasoningClaude Haiku 4.5 wins | ||
| MuSR | 63% | — |
| BBH | 81% | — |
| LongBench v2 | 72% | 62% |
| MRCRv2 | 70% | — |
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMLU | 68% | — |
| GPQA | 67% | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | 65% | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | 73% | 88.5% |
| HLE | 11% | 28.8% |
| FrontierScience | 64% | — |
| SimpleQA | 65% | — |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| Instruction FollowingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| IFEval | 86% | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MGSM | 82% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 79% | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | 68% | — |
| AIME 2024 | 70% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 69% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2023 | 64% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2024 | 66% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | 65% | — |
| BRUMO 2025 | 67% | — |
| MATH-500 | 81% | — |
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 63. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 67% and 90.4%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 54.4. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 48.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Haiku 4.5 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 68.9 versus 62. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 51.9. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.8 versus 78.4. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.3 versus 86. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 80.1. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.