Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3 32B

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 4.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 22 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic

50.3

Rank #50 Confirmed

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 22 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher in 9 categories and Qwen3 32B in 0 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 46.1 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 46.5% for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and 17.3% for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $3 / $15 for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
  • Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 131K.
  • Qwen3 32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index50.339.2
Released2026-02-172025-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M131K
Max output128K16K
Input $ / M tokens$3$0.70
Output $ / M tokens$15$2.80
Results tracked5726

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

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.3 (#67), Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
SciCode46.8%35.4%
LMArena Coding15041358
SWE-bench Verified75.2%—
DeepSWE29.9%—
FrontierCode24.3%—
Aider Polyglot—40%
LMArena WebDev1522—
WeirdML66.1%—
ALE-Bench1,327—

Agentic & Tool Use Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
Terminal-Bench53.4%—
APEX-Agents43%—
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard—48.7%
OSWorld 2.09.3%—
DeepResearch Bench54.9%—
OSWorld72.1%—
ExploitBench23.6%—
GBAEval48.8%—
GDP.pdf18%—
LMArena Search1221—
Vending-Bench 27,204—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
CritPt3.1%0.3%
Chess Puzzles13%5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14841334
DTBench89.9%67.5%
LMCA46.5%17.3%
Epoch Capabilities Index152.24138.51
ARC-AGI-260.4%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark—54.9%
NYT Connections (extended)80.9%—
ARC-AGI-186.5%—
Thematic Generalization76.3%—
Mystery Game Puzzles16%—
ForecastBench62—

Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202585.8%66.9%
LMArena Math14621399
ProofBench45%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)32.4%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)8.3%—

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
GPQA Diamond87.4%65.7%
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.6%5.9%
LMArena Expert15001362
SimpleQA Verified35.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Qwen3 32B: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Vision1283—
Blueprint-Bench 26.7%—
LMArena Document1482—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Non-English14401317
LMArena Chinese14911357
LMArena German14281341
LMArena Russian14401311
LMArena French1465—
LMArena Japanese1420—
LMArena Korean1411—
LMArena Spanish1464—

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Instruction Following14751305

Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Longer Query14791327
Fiction.LiveBench—74.2%

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads

Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3 32B
LMArena Text14581340
LMArena Creative Writing14351297
LMArena Multi-Turn14641331
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1810—
EQ-Bench 41207—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Qwen3 32B?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3 32B costs 4.9× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3 32B?

Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3 32B better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 does, with 1M tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3 32B share?

22 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3 32B has 26.

Related comparisons

Go deeper