Claude Sonnet 4.6vsQwen3.8-Max
Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 2.4T |
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% | — |
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. | — | 67.7% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
Research reproduction PaperBenchreproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
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 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 86.6% |
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% | — |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 53.4% |
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% | — |
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% | — |
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% | 86.1%Best |
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% | 88.4%Best |
Visual reasoning BabyVisionTests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | 74.5% | — |
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 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Which is better: Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.8-Max?
Qwen3.8-Max leads Claude Sonnet 4.6 on 2 of the 2 benchmarks they both report (OSWorld-Verified, CharXiv Reasoning). Claude Sonnet 4.6 shipped 167 days before Qwen3.8-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On OSWorld-Verified, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 86.1% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 72.5%. On CharXiv Reasoning, Qwen3.8-Max leads at 88.4% vs Claude Sonnet 4.6 at 72.4%.
Frequently asked questions
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released by Anthropic on Feb 17 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
Other comparisons
Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGPT-5.6 SolQwen3.8-MaxvsGPT-5.6 SolClaude Sonnet 4.6vsGemini 3.6 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.6 FlashClaude Sonnet 4.6vsMuse Spark 1.1Qwen3.8-MaxvsMuse Spark 1.1Claude Sonnet 4.6vsGrok 4.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.5Claude Sonnet 4.6vsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Flash-0731Claude Sonnet 4.6vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5