Model A

Anthropic

64.8/100

Estimated · Public rank #37

90% interval 50.5–79.1

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Updated August 15, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B

Qwen3.6-27B

Alibaba

53.7/100

Estimated · Public rank #105

90% interval 42.2–65.2

Decision reading

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 53.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.

7 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

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.

Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Claude Sonnet 5
Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
The category averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so they are directional rather than like-for-like.
Confidence: limited
Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

12 Claude Sonnet 5 only

7 Shared

31 Qwen3.6-27B only

Shared results: 7
Claude Sonnet 5 only: 12
Qwen3.6-27B only: 31
Like-for-like categories: 0 / 8

4 categories use different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 81.9
Qwen3.6-27B: 59.3
Weighted basis: 3 vs 1 rows
Reading: Directional only

Coding

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 76.7
Qwen3.6-27B: 77.5
Weighted basis: 2 vs 3 rows
Reading: Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4
Qwen3.6-27B: 53.3
Weighted basis: 1 vs 4 rows
Reading: Directional only

Multimodal

Directional only

Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3
Qwen3.6-27B: 76.7
Weighted basis: 1 vs 2 rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B: 89.2
Weighted basis: 0 vs 2 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: Not measured
Qwen3.6-27B: Not measured
Weighted basis: 0 vs 0 rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category averages with the server-provided evidence basis for Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.6-27B
Category	Claude Sonnet 5	Qwen3.6-27B	Weighted basis	Reading
Agentic	81.9	59.3	Directional only3 vs 1 rows	Directional only
Coding	76.7	77.5	Directional only2 vs 3 rows	Directional only
Knowledge	57.4	53.3	Directional only1 vs 4 rows	Directional only
Multimodal	88.3	76.7	Directional only1 vs 2 rows	Directional only
Reasoning	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Math	Not measured	89.2	Not comparable0 vs 2 rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable
Instruction following	Not measured	Not measured	Not comparable0 vs 0 rows	Not comparable

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.

HLE
Knowledge
Claude Sonnet 5: 57.4%Qwen3.6-27B: 24%Normalized gap 33.4Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.6-27B source
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
Claude Sonnet 5: 80.4%Qwen3.6-27B: 59.3%Normalized gap 21.1Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.6-27B source
CharXiv
Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 5: 88.3%Qwen3.6-27B: 78.4%Normalized gap 9.9Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.6-27B source
SWE-bench Pro
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 63.2%Qwen3.6-27B: 53.5%Normalized gap 9.7Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.6-27B source
SWE-bench Verified
Coding
Claude Sonnet 5: 85.2%Qwen3.6-27B: 77.2%Normalized gap 8.0Claude Sonnet 5 source Qwen3.6-27B source

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
Qwen3.6-27B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.13; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Claude Sonnet 5: $0.18; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B: Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationClaude Sonnet 5Qwen3.6-27B

Context window

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

Claude Sonnet 5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6-27B

262K

API model ID

Claude Sonnet 5

claude-sonnet-5

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6-27B

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

$0.2 per 1M cached input tokens

Claude API pricing

Qwen3.6-27B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text, image

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Claude Sonnet 5

text

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Claude Sonnet 5

Generally Available · Claude API

Anthropic model overview

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Claude Sonnet 5

Reasoning

Qwen3.6-27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

License

Claude Sonnet 5

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

Release date

Claude Sonnet 5

2026-06-30

Qwen3.6-27B

2026-04-21

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 score estimate, 64.78 versus 53.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

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

Claude Sonnet 5

API / mo$9,000

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

Benchmark evidence

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

Browse raw public benchmark evidence50 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 3.0
Claude Sonnet 514.6%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
BrowseComp
Claude Sonnet 584.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
HLE w/ tools
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Claude Sonnet 581.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B72.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B53.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
QwenWebBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B1487
Source
Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B70.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B54.84%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

SWE-bench Verified
Claude Sonnet 585.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B77.2%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Claude Sonnet 563.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B53.5%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Claude Sonnet 578.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B71.3%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
SWE Multimodal
Claude Sonnet 528.1%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Claude Sonnet 580.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
FrontierCode 1.1 Main
Claude Sonnet 542.7%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
cursorBench32
Claude Sonnet 561.5%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
APEX-SWE
Claude Sonnet 546.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
EEBench
Claude Sonnet 540.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
3DCodeBench
Claude Sonnet 539.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B83.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B36.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

HLE
Claude Sonnet 557.4%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B24%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 543.2%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B86.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B93.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B66%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B91.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B87.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

HMMT Feb 2025
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B93.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B90.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B84.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B80.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
AIME26
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B94.1%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

CharXiv
Claude Sonnet 588.3%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B78.4%
Source
Claude Sonnet 5 leads this result
CharXiv w/o tools
Claude Sonnet 577%
Source
Qwen3.6-27B—
Not directly comparable
MMMU
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B82.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
RealWorldQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B84.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
DynaMath
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B85.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MStar
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B81.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B56.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
CC-OCR
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B81.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
CountBench
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B97.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B92.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
ERQA
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B62.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B87.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B84.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B86.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
V*
Claude Sonnet 5—
Qwen3.6-27B94.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the higher public score estimate, 64.78 versus 53.73, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

The current coding averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. 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 Qwen3.6-27B?

The current agentic tasks averages use different weighted benchmark sets, so BenchLM does not name a winner from them. Read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Claude Sonnet 5 has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 15, 2026

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Which one for your work

Long documents

Coding work

Agentic work

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

What is actually comparable

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Reasoning

Math

Multilingual

Instruction following

Shape of the matched evidence

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

Self-host vs API cost

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Math

Multimodal

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Which costs less, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Which has the larger context window, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Related comparisons

Watch Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.6-27B