Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated November 12, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 5.5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Share or export
Decision reading
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 54.73. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- API price per 1M tokens
Claude Sonnet 5.5: $2 input / $10 output
Qwen3.5 397B: $0.60 input / $3.60 output
- Context window
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 1M
Qwen3.5 397B: 128K
- Released
Claude Sonnet 5.5: September 28, 2026
Qwen3.5 397B: February 16, 2026
- Shared results
- 2
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
- 62
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 60
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 5.5 · Estimated: Qwen3.5 397B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How 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.
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
Qwen3.5 397B is scored on Estimated evidence for agentic, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limitedCache-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. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
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.
81.0Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
Or describe your own job
The LLM Selector reads what you need a model for and returns a shortlist, ranked in the same order the job pages publish.
Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.
We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
62 Claude Sonnet 5.5 only
2 Shared
60 Qwen3.5 397B only
3 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.
SWE-bench ProCoding
Normalized gap 30.4Claude Sonnet 5.5:81.3%Qwen3.5 397B:50.9%SWE MultilingualCoding
Normalized gap 21.0Claude Sonnet 5.5:90.3%Qwen3.5 397B:69.3%
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 v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, 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.
Agentic
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 72.7
- Supported · #9/135
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 43.4
- Estimated · #66/135
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Multimodal
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 78.9
- Estimated · #7/67
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 53.7
- Estimated · #49/67
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 22 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 82.1
- Supported · #6/180
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 51.9
- Estimated · #80/180
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 17 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Coding
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 81.0
- Supported · #4/162
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 77.0
- Supported · #6/160
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 93.8
- #5/17
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 79.9
- #63/157
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- 89.7
- Unranked · 4 rankable rows
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 72.7
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.5 397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 72.7Supported · #9/135 | 43.4Estimated · #66/135 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 19 vs 14 public rows | Directional only |
| Multimodal | 78.9Estimated · #7/67 | 53.7Estimated · #49/67 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 22 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 82.1Supported · #6/180 | 51.9Estimated · #80/180 | Directional onlyBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 17 vs 6 public rows | Directional only |
| Coding | 81.0Supported · #4/162 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 12 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | 77.0Supported · #6/160 | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 2 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 93.8#5/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 79.9#63/157 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 89.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows | 72.7Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, reasoning, multimodal, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) 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 5.5
- $0.007
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $0.13
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $0.16
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Your workload
Enter a month of tokens to price it at both models’ listed API rates.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5
- $40.00
- per month
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $13.20
- per month
Standard listed rates, no batch or volume discounts.
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 5.5Qwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
Claude Sonnet 5.5
claude-sonnet-5-5
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationQwen3.5 397B
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 5.5
$0.1 per 1M cached input tokens
Claude API pricingQwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
text, image, video
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B model cardDocumented outputs
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Qwen3.5 397B
Provider availability
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Generally Available · Claude API, Amazon Bedrock, Google Cloud, Microsoft Foundry, Claude Platform on AWS
Anthropic Claude Sonnet 5.5 model documentationQwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
Claude Sonnet 5.5
2026-09-28
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 54.73. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.16 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger documented window (1M).
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the higher public point estimate, 83.07 versus 54.73. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher for agentic tasks on the public lane, 72.7 to 43.4. Qwen3.5 397B 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 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5.5 and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.16 and $0.168. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.5 397B?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 128K.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Claude Sonnet 5.5
API / mo$9,000
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.5 397B
API / mo$3,150
Self-host / mo$13,981
Break-even222M/day
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence124 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 4.1
Claude Sonnet 5.563.90%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5.570.60%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 5.564.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
DRACO
Claude Sonnet 5.587.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
Claude Sonnet 5.559.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LAB all-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.510.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
LAB criterion-pass (Harvey held-out)
Claude Sonnet 5.593.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass@3
Claude Sonnet 5.585.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified Pass³
Claude Sonnet 5.568.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon Verified avg. turns
Claude Sonnet 5.531.6 turnsSourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
AutomationBench (Zapier 1.0.6)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.70%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Toolathlon-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.577.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Hermes Index
Claude Sonnet 5.553.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Hermes Bench
Claude Sonnet 5.573.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MazeBench
Claude Sonnet 5.58%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1
Claude Sonnet 5.580.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OSWorld 2.1 Offline
Claude Sonnet 5.583.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Binary Exploitation Benchmark
Claude Sonnet 5.548SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Claude Sonnet 5.583.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B69%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B62.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 5.546.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
CursorBench 4.0
Claude Sonnet 5.555.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.581.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 5.590.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B69.3%SourceClaude Sonnet 5.5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5.554.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
DeepSWE
Claude Sonnet 5.571.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 1.1 Extended
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ProgramBench
Claude Sonnet 5.579.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierSWE v2
Claude Sonnet 5.561.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Bug Hunt Bench
Claude Sonnet 5.551.3 fixesSourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierCode 2.0
Claude Sonnet 5.541.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
VulcanBench Frontier v4
Claude Sonnet 5.592.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B32.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
ExtractBench Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.532%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ExtractBench (LlamaIndex)
Claude Sonnet 5.594.68%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ParseBench
Claude Sonnet 5.569.21%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.561.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Chartography (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.590.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.747SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BenchCAD Vision2Code (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.50.963SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Biomedical image analysis
Claude Sonnet 5.572.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA
Claude Sonnet 5.576.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
OfficeQA Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.565.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMMU
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B85.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B79%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B90.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
We-Math
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B86.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B61.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B82.0%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B93.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B97.2%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B92.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B47.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B67.5%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B86.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
HealthBench (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.569.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench (length-adjusted)
Claude Sonnet 5.565.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional (raw)
Claude Sonnet 5.577.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
Claude Sonnet 5.569.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-solvable)
Claude Sonnet 5.589.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
BioMysteryBench (human-difficult)
Claude Sonnet 5.544.7%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SpatialBench Verified
Claude Sonnet 5.572.5%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SingleCellBench
Claude Sonnet 5.559.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protein Design
Claude Sonnet 5.551.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Morphology-to-molecule matching
Claude Sonnet 5.525.0%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Medicinal chemistry
Claude Sonnet 5.565.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protein Design library ranking
Claude Sonnet 5.554.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
De novo protein-binder design
Claude Sonnet 5.582.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (troubleshooting)
Claude Sonnet 5.567.3%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
Protocols (understanding)
Claude Sonnet 5.566.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 5.556.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
PhysicianBench
Claude Sonnet 5.563.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceNot directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
GMMLU
Claude Sonnet 5.592.1%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MILU
Claude Sonnet 5.591.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-ProX
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B59.1%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B88.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (no tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.586.8%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
ArXivMath Aug. 2026 (tools)
Claude Sonnet 5.595.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Claude Sonnet 5.588.772%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
Claude Sonnet 5.580.488%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Sonnet 5.5—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
124 public results · 2 shared
Watch Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 7,000+ subscribers.
Last updated November 12, 2026