Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 5 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: Claude Sonnet 4.5 estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 5 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 53 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 5
- Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
- 7
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 53
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Claude Sonnet 4.5 makes more sense if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the better fit if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 5 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B finish on the same provisional overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The provisional headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 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. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
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 | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.511.2 | Margin→ 77.0 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.583.4 | Margin← 31.6 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.555.4 | Margin← 3.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.577.2 | Margin← 3.4 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Reasoning | Claude Sonnet 4.513.6 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 77.2%B 73.4%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.5Δ 3.8SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 83.4%B 86%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 2.6GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 50%B 51.5%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 1.5Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.5Not available | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.5200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins17 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 50% | 51.5% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 61.4% | — | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | 17.0% | 35.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 48.51% | 42.65% | Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads |
| JobBenchSource | 27.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | 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 | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 77.2% | 73.4% | Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads |
| 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 |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | — | 34.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 35.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 83.4% | 86% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | 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 |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2025Source | 87% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 13.495% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 4.167% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1224 | — | 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. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 64.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B are tied on the provisional overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 51.8. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 73.8. 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 11.2. 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 Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 55.4 versus 51.5. Inside this category, VITA-Bench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.