Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
80
Winner · 5/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
2/8 categoriesClaude Sonnet 4.6· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6 Plus only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 80 to 69. 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 reasoning, where it averages 78 against 62. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 71.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus does hit back in instruction following, 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 Plus. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6 Plus 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 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 59.1% | 61.6% |
| BrowseComp | 77% | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | 72.5% | 62.5% |
| Claw-Eval | 66.3% | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| HumanEval | 93% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 79.6% | 78.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 54% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | 64% | 56.6% |
| FLTEval | 23.7% | — |
| SWE-Rebench | 60.7% | — |
| React Native Evals | 77.9% | — |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & GroundedClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins | ||
| OfficeQA Pro | 88% | — |
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| MMMU-Pro | — | 78.8% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins | ||
| MuSR | 93% | — |
| BBH | 88% | — |
| LongBench v2 | 83% | 62% |
| MRCRv2 | 79% | — |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 59% | — |
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins | ||
| GPQA | 89.9% | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | 95% | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Pro | 79.2% | 88.5% |
| HLE | 49% | 28.8% |
| FrontierScience | 85% | — |
| SimpleQA | 48.5% | — |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| Instruction FollowingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| IFEval | 89.5% | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| MultilingualClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins | ||
| MGSM | 91% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 89% | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| MATH-500 | 97.8% | — |
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead overall, 80 to 69. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 71.6%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 72.5 versus 66. Inside this category, SuperGPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 62.7. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 78 versus 62. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 68.3 versus 62. Inside this category, OSWorld-Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 88 versus 78.8. Qwen3.6 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.3 versus 89.5. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 84.7. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.