Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B
Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher in 10 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 66.2 to 46.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 65.6% for Claude Sonnet 5 and 31.2% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for Claude Sonnet 5.
- Claude Sonnet 5 accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 54.6 | 46.0 |
| Released | 2026-06-29 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 51 | 36 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 55.5 (#26), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1541 | 1400 |
| LMArena Coding | 1483 | 1465 |
| DeepSWE | 53.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 42.7% | — |
| CursorBench | 34.1% | — |
| SciCode | 54.3% | — |
| GSO | 37.3% | — |
| WeirdML | 68.8% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,463 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 42.8 (#18), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.5% | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |
| GBAEval | 65.3% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1194 | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,378 | — |
Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 49.1 (#39), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 75.1% | 58.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 35% | 13% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1461 | 1448 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 35% | 18% |
| DTBench | 92.5% | 87.5% |
| LMCA | 50% | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.21 | 146.65 |
| SimpleBench | 60.6% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.7% |
| CritPt | 16.9% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 65.1% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 60% | — |
| Bench to the Future 3 | 0.14 | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.1 | — |
Math Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 66.2 (#27), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 65.6% | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 94.7% | 88.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1467 | 1454 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 29.3% | — |
| ProofBench | 77% | — |
Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 55.6 (#47), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 90.5% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1490 | 1462 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 33.7% | — |
Multimodal Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 42.4 (#31), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1274 | 1263 |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 24.9% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1466 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Claude Sonnet 5: 53.8 (#55), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1430 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1477 | 1500 |
| LMArena French | 1460 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1440 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1422 | 1426 |
| LMArena Korean | 1411 | 1384 |
| LMArena Russian | 1451 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1437 | 1441 |
Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 76.3 (#41), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1452 | 1424 |
Long Context Too close to call
Claude Sonnet 5: 44.8 (#55), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1463 | 1442 |
Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 5 leads
Claude Sonnet 5: 69.2 (#25), Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79)
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1442 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1416 | 1401 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1794 | 1478 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1454 | 1446 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1236 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs 3.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Claude Sonnet 5's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Claude Sonnet 5 lists at $2 and $10.
Is Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 42.0 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Claude Sonnet 5 does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.