Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
N/A
No comparison
51.47/100
0 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking unranked (Not scored); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking; 57 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking only
2
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
57
Comparable categories
0 / 8

Benchmark data for Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is coming soon on BenchLM.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking200KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —42.65%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 22.62%—Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —73.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —49.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —41.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource —63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource —85.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
HLESource —21.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —31.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —20.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-21.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —18.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —49.7%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source —92.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1219—Not comparable
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.3%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5 ThinkingQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource —64.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Can I compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 Thinking and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B on BenchLM yet?

Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.

Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?

BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 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.