Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Updated November 13, 2026. Rank says Claude Sonnet 5 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Share or export
Share on XLinkedInAPI/MCP

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public point estimate, 63.83 versus 45.52. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence. 5 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A
Anthropic logo
Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic

63.83/100

Supported · Public rank #34

90% interval 58.3–69.4

Model B
Alibaba logo
Qwen3.5 Flash

Alibaba

45.52/100

Estimated · Public rank #118

Conditional range 35.8–55.2

API price per 1M tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $2 input / $10 output

Qwen3.5 Flash: $0.10 input / $0.40 output

Context window

Claude Sonnet 5: 1M

Qwen3.5 Flash: 1M

Released

Claude Sonnet 5: June 30, 2026

Qwen3.5 Flash: March 4, 2026

Shared results
5
Claude Sonnet 5 only
27
Qwen3.5 Flash only
0
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8
Supported: Claude Sonnet 5 · Estimated: Qwen3.5 Flash. 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 Flash

    Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Qwen3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback
Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Qwen3.5 Flash

    Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3.5 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3.5 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    No clear pick

    The documented context windows are equal.

    Confidence: documented

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.

51.7Claude Sonnet 529.2Qwen3.5 Flash

Directional only · BenchAlign v5.8

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job
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.

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.

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.

Coding

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5
51.7
Supported · #40/162
Qwen3.5 Flash
29.2
Estimated · #112/162
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 11 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Claude Sonnet 5
61.8
Supported · #43/180
Qwen3.5 Flash
46.5
Estimated · #98/180
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
62.5
Supported · #22/135
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 10 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
59.8
Estimated · #32/160
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
60.4
Supported · #34/67
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5
64.9
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.5 Flash
32.6
Unranked · 1 rankable row
Basis
Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
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
$0.007
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.0003
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Costs use the listed standard API rates.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5
$0.13
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.0062
Fits in one request

Qwen3.5 Flash 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
$0.18
Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.026
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower modeled cost

Qwen3.5 Flash 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
$40.00
per month
Qwen3.5 Flash
$1.80
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.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Claude Sonnet 5

1M

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.5 Flash

1M

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Claude Sonnet 5

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not published

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

Qwen3.5 Flash

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 5 has the higher public point estimate, 63.83 versus 45.52. Their conditional score ranges do not overlap. These ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Workload cost
Repository review: $0.13 vs $0.0062. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.18 vs $0.026.
Context tradeoff
Both models list 1M.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public point estimate, 63.83 versus 45.52. 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 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher for coding on the public lane, 51.7 to 29.2. Qwen3.5 Flash is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Qwen3.5 Flash is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

For the stated presets, chat costs $0.007 on Claude Sonnet 5 and $0.0003 on Qwen3.5 Flash; repository review costs $0.13 and $0.0062; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.18 and $0.026. Qwen3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Both models list the same context window, 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence32 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 4.1

    Claude Sonnet 512.10%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 3.0

    Claude Sonnet 514.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Claude Sonnet 584.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/ tools

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 581.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 574.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • ApprenticeBench

    Claude Sonnet 516%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • MazeBench

    Claude Sonnet 50%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 557.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Claude Sonnet 585.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Claude Sonnet 563.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multilingual

    Claude Sonnet 578.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE Multimodal

    Claude Sonnet 528.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.1

    Claude Sonnet 580.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierCode 1.1 Main

    Claude Sonnet 542.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CursorBench 3.2

    Claude Sonnet 561.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • VulcanBench CII v1

    Claude Sonnet 589.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 582.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash83.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.5 Flash leads this result

  • SWE-bench (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 579.6%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash64.4%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • CursorBench 4.0

    Claude Sonnet 534.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • ParseBench

    Claude Sonnet 561.16%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Claude Sonnet 588.3%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 577%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • HLE

    Claude Sonnet 557.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE w/o tools

    Claude Sonnet 543.2%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE-Verified

    Claude Sonnet 531.0%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • LABBench2

    Claude Sonnet 580.1%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA Diamond (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 588.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash82.8%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • MMLU-Pro (Vals)

    Claude Sonnet 587.5%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash84.1%
    Source

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Shared source
    Claude Sonnet 565.614%
    Qwen3.5 Flash18.246%

    Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Claude Sonnet 529.268%
    Source
    Qwen3.5 Flash—

    Not directly comparable

32 public results · 5 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricingRead the methodologyOpen the model selector

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.5 Flash

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 7,000+ subscribers.

Last updated November 13, 2026