Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B vs Sonar

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.1

Rank #119 Confirmed

Sonar Perplexity

38.5

Rank #187 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads 60.0 to 52.6.
  • Sonar is cheaper at $1 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.40 / $3.20 for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
  • Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Perplexity
Noometry Index42.138.5
Released2026-02-232024-01-01
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K128K
Max output66K4K
Input $ / M tokens$0.40$1
Output $ / M tokens$3.20$1
Results tracked277

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LMArena WebDev1360—
SciCode35.6%—
LiveBench Coding—35.1%
LMArena Coding1436—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
NYT Connections (extended)51.7%—
CritPt0.9%—
Thematic Generalization51.2%—
LiveBench Reasoning—46.3%
LMArena Hard Prompts1421—
Mystery Game Puzzles17%—
DTBench84.3%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—37.9%
LMCA32.2%—
LiveBench—46.9%

Math Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LiveBench Math—41.6%
LMArena Math1432—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142), Sonar: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
Vectara Hallucination Rate11.2%—
LMArena Expert1432—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57), Sonar: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LMArena Vision1245—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107), Sonar: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LMArena Non-English1400—
LMArena Chinese1462—
LMArena French1442—
LMArena German1426—
LMArena Japanese1367—
LMArena Korean1352—
LMArena Russian1400—
LMArena Spanish1424—

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115), Sonar: 71.4 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LiveBench Instruction Following—76.2%
LMArena Instruction Following1399—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109), Sonar: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LMArena Longer Query1410—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 122B-A10B leads

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 122B-A10BSonar
LMArena Text1417—
LMArena Creative Writing1368—
LMArena Multi-Turn1416—
LiveBench Language—44.1%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better than Sonar?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 122B-A10B or Sonar?

Sonar is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 122B-A10B lists at $0.40 and $3.20.

Is Qwen3.5 122B-A10B or Sonar better for coding?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 35.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 122B-A10B and Sonar share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper