Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 27B

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 4.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.5 Anthropic

44.1

Rank #81 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 32.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 77.8% for Claude Sonnet 4.5 and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
Claude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index44.142.2
Released2025-09-292026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output64K66K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$15$3.60
Results tracked7311

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), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
SciCode44.7%37.3%
SWE-bench Verified71.3%—
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)71.4%—
LMArena WebDev1393—
SWE-bench Multilingual67%—
GSO14.7%—
WeirdML47.7%—
LMArena Coding1489—
ALE-Bench796.15—
AlgoTune1.52—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 38.3 (#32), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
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%—
Vending-Bench 23,839—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 26.9 (#125), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
CritPt1.1%0.9%
Chess Puzzles12%22%
Mystery Game Puzzles17%7%
DTBench83.2%78.1%
LMCA38.8%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.84146.5
ARC-AGI-213.6%—
SimpleBench54.3%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark57.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)37.3%—
ARC-AGI-163.7%—
EnigmaEval6%—
EBR-Bench2.4%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1462—
ForecastBench61.9—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 32.3 (#216), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)23.9%35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202577.8%91.1%
FrontierMath Tier 42.4%—
ProofBench19%—
Omni-MATH55.3%—
LMArena Math1449—
MATH Level 597.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)15.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)4.2%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 48.4 (#76), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond82.3%85.9%
Humanity's Last Exam13.7%—
SimpleQA Verified30.7%—
MMLU-Pro86.9%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate12%—
GPQA (HELM)68.6%—
LMArena Expert1482—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 34.8 (#89), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
VPCT39.8%—
LMArena Document1450—

Multilingual Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 53.4 (#69), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1425—
LMArena Chinese1459—
LMArena French1458—
LMArena German1427—
LMArena Japanese1390—
LMArena Korean1403—
LMArena Russian1437—
LMArena Spanish1457—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 75.0 (#78), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
IFEval85%—
LMArena Instruction Following1459—

Long Context Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 45.2 (#46), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1476—

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.5: 66.5 (#34), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1439—
LMArena Creative Writing1442—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1678—
WildBench85.4%—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1465—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 44.1 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 27B costs 4.4× 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 Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists at $3 and $15.

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 47.3 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6 27B share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has 73 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper