Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 9.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 88.7 to 38.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 88.8% for Claude Sonnet 5.5 and 22.5% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for Claude Sonnet 5.5.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 60.5 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2026-09-28 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 65.5 (#6), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 1,819 | 326.4 |
| FrontierCode | 52.1% | — |
| CursorBench | 55.5% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | 1699 | — |
| FrontierSWE | 61.9% | — |
| SciCode | 61% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 44.9 (#14), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 75.5% | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 52.4 (#29), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 65% | 18% |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| CritPt | 31.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |
Math Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 88.7 (#4), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 88.8% | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 80.5% | — |
| ProofBench | 100% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 66.0 (#11), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 95.6% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 46.5% | 15.9% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude Sonnet 5.5: 53.2 (#5), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Furniture Assembly | 75% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 5.5 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 60.5 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 9.5× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5.5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5.5 or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 5.5 lists at $2 and $10.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5.5 has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.