Claude Sonnet 4.6vsQwen3.6
Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.6 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 35B |
Context window | — | 256k |
| 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% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 49.5% |
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 | 73.4% |
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. | — | 67.2% |
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. | — | 51.5% |
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% | — |
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 | 21.4% |
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 | 86% |
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% | — |
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% | 78%Best |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74.5% | 75.3%Best |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 81.7% |
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 | Apr 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.6?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads Qwen3.6 on 3 of the 5 benchmarks they both report. Claude Sonnet 4.6 shipped 58 days before Qwen3.6, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is proprietary, while Qwen3.6 is open weight.
On SWE-Bench Verified, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 79.6% vs Qwen3.6 at 73.4%. On Humanity's Last Exam · no tools, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 33.2% vs Qwen3.6 at 21.4%. On GPQA Diamond, Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads at 89.9% vs Qwen3.6 at 86%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.6 leads at 78% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 72.4%. On MMMU-Pro, Qwen3.6 leads at 75.3% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 74.5%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released by Anthropic on Feb 17 2026.
Qwen3.6 was released by Qwen on Apr 16 2026.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on SWE-Bench Verified — Claude Sonnet 4.6 79.6% vs Qwen3.6 73.4%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads on Humanity's Last Exam · no tools — Claude Sonnet 4.6 33.2% vs Qwen3.6 21.4%.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is a proprietary model released by Anthropic. Qwen3.6 is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.6vsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Sonnet 4.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Sonnet 4.6vsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.6vsMuse Spark 1.1Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.6vsGrok 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Claude Sonnet 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.6vsMistral Medium 3.5