Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

65.07/100
Margin
2.2pts
winning →
67.22/100
1 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus share 23 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 46 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
10
Qwen3.7 Plus only
46
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 23 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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.22 versus 65.07. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 26.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 71.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 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. Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryClaude Sonnet 4.6ΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathClaude Sonnet 4.626.4Margin→ 66.5Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticClaude Sonnet 4.665.2Margin→ 6.5Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.669.1Margin→ 6.5Qwen3.7 Plus75.6
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.666.0Margin← 5.9Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultimodalClaude Sonnet 4.677.4Margin→ 4.1Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
ReasoningClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingClaude Sonnet 4.6Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Claude Sonnet 4.6B · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 95%B 71.4%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 23.6
    SuperGPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 71.4%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  2. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 49%B 34.7%
    Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 14.3
    HLE: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 49%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.

  3. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.1%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 11.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 79.2%B 88.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 9.3
    MMLU-Pro: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 79.2%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 88.5%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.4%B 85.9%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 8.5
    CharXiv: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 77.4%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 85.9%. 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 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondClaude Sonnet 4.644 tok/sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenClaude Sonnet 4.61.48 sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensClaude Sonnet 4.6200KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.1%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 72.1%73.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Claw-EvalSource 67.8%62.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
CyberGymSource 65.2%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 79.5%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Gert LabsSource 62.92%—Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source 8.3%2.8%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
JobBenchSource 36.9%—Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —73.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%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
GDPval-AASource —21.8%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —936Not comparable
CodingQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 79.6%77.7%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%45.5%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource 24.3%—Not comparable
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
Reasoning
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 57.7%65.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.9%9.1%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 89.9%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
SuperGPQASource 95%71.4%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMLU-ProSource 79.2%88.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 49%34.7%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 35.9%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 79.9%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 13.2%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -2.9%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.0%22.2%Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 65.9%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 32.400%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.300%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 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
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
CharXivSource 77.4%85.9%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.6%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 13141288Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
MMMU-ProSource —79%Not comparable
MathVisionSource —90.3%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
Inst. Following
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 41.2%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 65.07. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 71.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 60.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 75.6 versus 69.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?

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

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 65.2. 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 Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 77.4. Inside this category, Design Arena Website 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.