Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on the public coding lane, 48.1 to 35.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Updated September 27, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 56.35 versus 40.06, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 7 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 7
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 19
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
- 8
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 4.6 · Estimated: Qwen3.5-122B-A10BHow the comparison works
Which one for your work
Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedChat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-ratesCache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.
Confidence: rate-fallbackRepository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
48.1Claude Sonnet 4.635.7Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.7
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads the like-for-like coding row, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
19 Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
7 Shared
8 Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.
Shape of the matched evidence
Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.
Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.
SuperGPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 27.9Claude Sonnet 4.6:95%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B:67.1%OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic
Normalized gap 14.1Claude Sonnet 4.6:72.1%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B:58%Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 9.7Claude Sonnet 4.6:59.1%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B:49.4%SWE-bench VerifiedCoding
Normalized gap 7.6Claude Sonnet 4.6:79.6%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B:72%MMLU-ProKnowledge
Normalized gap 7.5Claude Sonnet 4.6:79.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B:86.7%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.7 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Coding
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 48.1
- Supported · #41/135
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 35.7
- Supported · #73/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 1 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 54.1
- #35/50
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 57.0
- #34/50
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads
Knowledge
Like-for-like- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 53.0
- Supported · #48/158
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 41.5
- Supported · #86/158
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 41.8
- Supported · #44/105
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 23.1
- Estimated · #84/105
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 46.6
- #88/124
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 91.6
- #11/124
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 69.0
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 49.8
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- 36.8
- #10/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- 48.8
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 48.1Supported · #41/135 | 35.7Supported · #73/135 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 8 vs 1 public rows | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 54.1#35/50 | 57.0#34/50 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 1 vs 1 weighted rows | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads |
| Knowledge | 53.0Supported · #48/158 | 41.5Supported · #86/158 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 6 vs 3 public rows | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads · intervals overlap |
| Agentic | 41.8Supported · #44/105 | 23.1Estimated · #84/105 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.7 lane · 9 vs 3 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 46.6#88/124 | 91.6#11/124 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 69.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 49.8Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 36.8#10/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 48.8Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not ranked | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 0 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.7) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.
Chat turn
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.0105
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.195
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 4.6
- $0.81
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Claude Sonnet 4.6 does not fit this workload in one request. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has no comparable published API token rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
SpecificationClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
200K
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
262K
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not published
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Not sourced
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Not sourced
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Non-Reasoning
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Proprietary
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 4.6
2026-02-01
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
2026-03-04
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
- Quality signal
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 56.35 versus 40.06, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the larger documented window (262K).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the higher public score estimate, 56.35 versus 40.06, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads the public coding lane, 48.1 to 35.7, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 41.8 to 23.1. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic tasks, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for agentic tasks from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.
Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 200K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence34 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.659.1%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B49.4%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.672.1%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B58%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 4.667.8%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
CyberGym
Claude Sonnet 4.665.2%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 4.662.92%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Claude Sonnet 4.68.3%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
JobBench
Claude Sonnet 4.636.9%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.657.3%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
Claude Sonnet 4.62%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B63.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 4.679.6%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B72%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SWE-Rebench
Claude Sonnet 4.660.7%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
React Native Evals
Claude Sonnet 4.680.6%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
Vibe Code Bench
Claude Sonnet 4.651.48%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
cursorBench31
Claude Sonnet 4.648.8%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 4.624.3%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.682.1%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
Reasoning
LongBench v2
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 4.677.4%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
MMMU
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMVU
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B74.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B86.2%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.689.9%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B86.6%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 4.695%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B67.1%SourceClaude Sonnet 4.6 leads this result
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.679.2%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B86.7%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B leads this result
HLE
Claude Sonnet 4.649%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.685.6%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 4.687.3%SourceQwen3.5-122B-A10B—Not directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
IFEval
Claude Sonnet 4.6—Qwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
34 public results · 7 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.
Last updated September 27, 2026