Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 21 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
11.2pts
← winning
53.82/100
3 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B share 21 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 33 to Qwen3.6-27B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
21
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
12
Qwen3.6-27B only
33
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-27B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 21 shared benchmark results across 6 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

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 53.82. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 66 against 53.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 66%. Qwen3.6-27B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $3.00 input / $15.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 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. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.

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 4.6 and Qwen3.6-27B
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔQwen3.6-27B
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin→ 62.8Qwen3.6-27B89.2
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin← 12.7Qwen3.6-27B53.3
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin→ 8.4Qwen3.6-27B77.5
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin← 5.9Qwen3.6-27B59.3
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4Margin← 0.7Qwen3.6-27B76.7

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Qwen3.6-27B

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 66%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 29
    SuperGPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 66%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 24%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 25
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 79.2%B 86.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 7
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.2%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  4. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 79.6%B 77.2%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2.4
    SWE-bench Verified: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.6%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 89.9%B 87.8%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 2.1
    GPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 89.9%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sQwen3.6-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KQwen3.6-27B262KQwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%59.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%—Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%72.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%94.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%54.84%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%—Not comparable
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —53.4%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1487Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —70.3%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —27.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —32.0%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1140Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%77.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SWE-RebenchSource 60.7%—Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 80.6%—Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 51.48%—Not comparable
cursorBench31Source 48.8%—Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%39.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —71.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —53.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —59.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —83.9%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —36.2%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —53.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%68.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CritPtSource 0.9%1.1%Qwen3.6-27B leads
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
GPQASource 89.9%87.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
SuperGPQASource 95%66%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%86.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
HLESource 49%24%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%37.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%84.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%21.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%-19.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%19.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%48.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ReduxSource —93.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —91.4%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —93.8%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —84.3%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —80.8%Not comparable
AIME26Source —94.1%Not comparable
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
CharXivSource 77.4%78.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%74.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1314—Not comparable
MMMUSource —82.9%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.8%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —84.1%Not comparable
DynaMathSource —85.6%Not comparable
MStarSource —81.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —56.1%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.2%Not comparable
CountBenchSource —97.8%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.5%Not comparable
ERQASource —62.5%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —87.7%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —84.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.6%Not comparable
V*Source —94.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%67.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 53.82. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 66%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 53.3. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 69.1. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 26.4. Claude Sonnet 4.6 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 59.3. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.4 versus 76.7. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Claude Sonnet 4.6
API / mo$13,500
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Anthropic Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 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.