Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 31 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 31 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads 52.9 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 46.5% for Claude Sonnet 4.6 and 29.1% 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 4.6.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 50.3 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-17 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $3 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 57 | 32 |
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), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1522 | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | 1504 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 1,327 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 75.2% | — |
| DeepSWE | 29.9% | — |
| FrontierCode | 24.3% | — |
| SciCode | 46.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 66.1% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 39.1 (#28), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 7,204 | 462.69 |
| Terminal-Bench | 53.4% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 43% | — |
| OSWorld 2.0 | 9.3% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 54.9% | — |
| OSWorld | 72.1% | — |
| ExploitBench | 23.6% | — |
| GBAEval | 48.8% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 18% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1221 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 46.1 (#45), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1484 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 16% | 20% |
| DTBench | 89.9% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 46.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 152.24 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 60.4% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 80.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 86.5% | — |
| CritPt | 3.1% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 76.3% | — |
| ForecastBench | 62 | — |
Math Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 52.9 (#49), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 85.8% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1462 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 32.4% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 8.3% | 0% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 18.2% |
| ProofBench | 45% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 51.7 (#65), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 87.4% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 35.5% | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 10.6% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1500 | 1407 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 38.0 (#68), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1283 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 6.7% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1482 | — |
Multilingual Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 54.4 (#41), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1440 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1491 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1465 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1428 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1420 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1440 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1464 | 1400 |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 77.4 (#25), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1475 | 1374 |
Long Context Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 45.3 (#44), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1479 | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads
Claude Sonnet 4.6: 70.2 (#22), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1458 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1435 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1464 | 1393 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1810 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1207 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the stronger model overall, scoring 50.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 34× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 4.6's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 lists at $3 and $15.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.3 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
31 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 57 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.