Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 32 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic

44.1

Rank #81 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 32 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher in 6 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 2 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in coding, where Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads 47.3 to 34.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 30.7% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

Claude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.142.5
Released2025-09-292026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output64K66K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$15$0.40
Results tracked7332

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 47.3 (#61), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev13931244
LMArena Coding14891412
ALE-Bench796.15221.8
SWE-bench Verified71.3%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)71.4%—
SWE-bench Multilingual67%—
SciCode44.7%—
GSO14.7%—
WeirdML47.7%—
AlgoTune1.52—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 38.3 (#32), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 23,839462.69
Terminal-Bench46.5%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard73.2%—
GDPval42.5%—
Remote Labor Index2.1%—
τ²-bench Airline72%—
τ²-bench Banking25.3%—
τ²-bench Retail72.4%—
τ²-bench Telecom84.9%—
Cybench60%—
DeepResearch Bench52.6%—
OSWorld62.9%—
LMArena Search1159—
METR Time Horizons67.4%—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 26.9 (#125), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Chess Puzzles12%21%
LMArena Hard Prompts14621403
Mystery Game Puzzles17%20%
DTBench83.2%82.9%
LMCA38.8%29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.84143.98
ARC-AGI-213.6%—
SimpleBench54.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)37.3%—
ARC-AGI-163.7%—
CritPt1.1%—
EnigmaEval6%—
EBR-Bench2.4%—
ForecastBench61.9—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 32.3 (#216), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)23.9%18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202577.8%84.4%
LMArena Math14491407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)15.2%6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%0%
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
ProofBench19%—
Omni-MATH55.3%—
MATH Level 597.7%—

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 48.4 (#76), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond82.3%82.3%
SimpleQA Verified30.7%20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%10.5%
LMArena Expert14821407
Humanity's Last Exam13.7%—
MMLU-Pro86.9%—
GPQA (HELM)68.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 34.8 (#89), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
VPCT39.8%—
LMArena Document1450—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 53.4 (#69), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English14251385
LMArena Chinese14591446
LMArena French14581412
LMArena German14271390
LMArena Japanese13901368
LMArena Korean14031344
LMArena Russian14371379
LMArena Spanish14571400

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 75.0 (#78), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following14591374
IFEval85%—

Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 45.2 (#46), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query14761392

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 66.5 (#34), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text14391397
LMArena Creative Writing14421343
LMArena Multi-Turn14651393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1678—
WildBench85.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists at $3 and $15.

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.3 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

32 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has 73 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper