Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.61/100
Margin
3.4pts
winning →
57.01/100
2 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.5 397B share 5 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 50 to Qwen3.5 397B.

Updated July 20, 2026
Shared results
5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
7
Qwen3.5 397B only
50
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 5 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 53.61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 11.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 83.4% to 88.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 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 Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.5 397B
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔQwen3.5 397B
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2Margin→ 79.4Qwen3.5 397B90.6
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6Margin→ 49.6Qwen3.5 397B63.2
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4Margin← 26.8Qwen3.5 397B56.6
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2Margin← 10.7Qwen3.5 397B66.5
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4Margin→ 1.1Qwen3.5 397B56.5
MultilingualClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B84.7
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B79.6
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5 397B92.6

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · Qwen3.5 397B

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 88.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 5
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 50%B 52.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 2.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 52.5%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 76.2%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 1
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputQwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 outputQwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableQwen3.5 397B96 tok/sA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableQwen3.5 397B2.44 sA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KQwen3.5 397B128KClaude Sonnet 4.5 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%52.5%Qwen3.5 397B leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%—Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%43.7%Qwen3.5 397B leads
Gert LabsSource 48.51%46.76%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
JobBenchSource 27.7%—Not comparable
BrowseCompSource —62%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —56.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —51.8%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —68.4%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
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.6%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 Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%76.2%Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads
LiveCodeBench v6Source —83.6%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —50.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —42.0%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —48.2%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%—Not comparable
LongBench v2Source —63.2%Not comparable
AI-NeedleSource —68.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —1.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
GPQASource 83.4%88.4%Qwen3.5 397B leads
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
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —33.7%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —89.3%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —27.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-29.8%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —31.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —89.1%Not comparable
MathQwen3.5 397B wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
AIME 2025Source 87%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 13.495%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%—Not comparable
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 Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
MMLU-ProXSource —84.7%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —59.1%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1222—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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —77.3%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5 397BResult
IFEvalSource —92.6%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 83.4% and 88.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 56.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 66.5. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 11.2. Claude Sonnet 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for reasoning, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 63.2 versus 13.6. Claude Sonnet 4.5 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 56.5 versus 55.4. Inside this category, VITA-Bench 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 20, 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.