Claude Sonnet 4.6vsQwen3.5
Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 91% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 79.6%Best | 76.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Agentic coding CursorBench v3.1Cursor's own test of harder, real-world coding tasks inside a code editor. Higher is better. | 49% | — |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | 30% | — |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 58% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 52.5% |
Multi-step tool use MCP AtlasCan the AI chain together many tools and steps to complete one bigger task, rather than doing just a single thing? Higher is better. | 69.5% | — |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 62% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | — | 69% |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | 33.2%Best | 28.7% |
Abstract reasoning ARC-AGI-2Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 58.3% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 89.9%Best | 88.4% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 72.5%Best | 62.2% |
Agentic financial analysis Finance Agent v2Tests the AI on real financial-analysis work, like digging through reports and making sound decisions. Higher is better. | 51% | — |
Knowledge work GDPval-AAMeasures how well the AI does economically valuable knowledge work, judged against human experts. Shown as a rating (like a chess Elo) — higher is better. | 1676 | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | 72.4% | 80.8%Best |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74.5% | 79%Best |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Spatial reasoning Blueprint-Bench 2Can the AI reason about space and layout — for example, understanding a floor plan or blueprint? Higher is better. | 6.7% | — |
Long context MRCR v2 (8-needle) · 128k averageTests whether the AI can find specific details buried inside a very long document (around 128k tokens — roughly a long book). Higher is better. | 84.9% | — |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1521 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Release date | Feb 17 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.5?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads Qwen3.5 on 4 of the 6 benchmarks they both report. Qwen3.5 shipped 1 days before Claude Sonnet 4.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 79.6% vs Qwen3.5 at 76.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 33.2% vs Qwen3.5 at 28.7%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 89.9% vs Qwen3.5 at 88.4%. On OSWorld-Verified, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 72.5% vs Qwen3.5 at 62.2%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.5 leads at 80.8% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 72.4%. On MMMU-Pro, Qwen3.5 leads at 79% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 74.5%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released by Anthropic on Feb 17 2026.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude Sonnet 4.6 79.6% vs Qwen3.5 76.4%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Claude Sonnet 4.6 33.2% vs Qwen3.5 28.7%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.5vsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Sonnet 4.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.5vsGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Sonnet 4.6vsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.5vsMuse Spark 1.1Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.5vsGrok 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.5vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Claude Sonnet 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.5vsMistral Medium 3.5