Model comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 34.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 37.4 to 19.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 8.5% for Claude 3.5 Sonnet and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
Side by side
| Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 34.6 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-06-20 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | 1M |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude 3.5 Sonnet leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 39.0 (#165), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1342 | 1412 |
| Aider Polyglot | 51.6% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| GSO | 4.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 40% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46.8% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 67.1% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58.6% | — |
| CadEval | 48% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
| HumanEval+ | 81.7% | — |
| MBPP+ | 74.3% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 32.3 (#67), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 24% | — |
| Cybench | 17.5% | — |
| BALROG | 32.6% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 45.2% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 23.1 (#183), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1305 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 67.8% | 82.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 133.55 | 143.98 |
| SimpleBench | 41.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 21% |
| EnigmaEval | 0.9% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 56.7% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 55% | — |
| LMCA | — | 29.1% |
| ForecastBench | 60.7 | — |
| LiveBench | 59% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 19.2 (#288), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 8.5% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1307 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 2.1% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 0% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| Omni-MATH | 27.6% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 52.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 28.6 (#245), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 55.3% | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1265 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 4.1% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| MMLU-Pro | 77.7% | — |
| Confabulations | 19.9% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| GPQA (HELM) | 56.5% | — |
| MMLU | 87.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 26.5 (#120), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1125 | — |
| Video-MME | 60% | — |
| GeoBench | 62% | — |
| VPCT | 33% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 43.2 (#185), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1283 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1272 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1305 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1297 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1234 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1200 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1306 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1290 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 68.8 (#182), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1297 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 69.3% | — |
| IFEval | 85.5% | — |
Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 39.9 (#167), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1311 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
Claude 3.5 Sonnet: 52.9 (#164), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude 3.5 Sonnet | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1298 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1292 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1326 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 80.3% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1451 | — |
| WildBench | 79.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 53.8% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 34.6 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 3.5 Sonnet or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude 3.5 Sonnet scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.0 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 3.5 Sonnet and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 3.5 Sonnet has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.