Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 6 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.61/100
Margin
13.6pts
winning →
67.22/100
2 category wins3 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.5 #96 (Estimated); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 6 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.5; 63 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
6
Claude Sonnet 4.5 only
6
Qwen3.7 Plus only
63
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.5 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 6 shared benchmark results across 4 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

Qwen3.7 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 67.22 to 53.61. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 11.2. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 50% to 70.3%. 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.

Qwen3.7 Plus 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. Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 scores and score margins for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.5ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathClaude Sonnet 4.511.2Margin→ 81.7Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.513.6Margin→ 78.1Qwen3.7 Plus91.7
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.583.4Margin← 23.3Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.555.4Margin→ 16.3Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.577.2Margin← 1.6Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
MultilingualClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus81.5
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.5Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.5B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 50%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 20.3
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 50%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 61.4%B 73.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 11.9
    OSWorld-Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 61.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 83.4%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 6.9
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 83.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 77.7%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 0.5
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.5 scored 77.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 77.7%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5$3 input / $15 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.5Not availableQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.5200KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 50%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 61.4%73.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
VITA-BenchSource 17.0%45.6%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 48.51%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 27.7%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —20.8%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource —22.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —93%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%77.7%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —55.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —45.5%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
ARC-AGI-2Source 13.6%—Not comparable
CritPtSource —9.1%Not comparable
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource —65.0%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.5 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 83.4%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
HLESource —34.7%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —39.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —90.0%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —33.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —2.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —22.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —25.5%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
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 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Design Arena WebsiteSource 12191288Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —80.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.7 PlusResult
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource —78.0%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 53.61. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 50% and 70.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.4 versus 60.1. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 75.6. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 91.7 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 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 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.