Model comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Claude Sonnet 4.6 #32 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 15 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Claude Sonnet 4.6; 6 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- Claude Sonnet 4.6 only
- 18
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 6
- Comparable categories
- 4 / 8
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.6 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.07 to 59.72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Claude Sonnet 4.6's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 69.1 against 51. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SuperGPQA, 95% to 73.9%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is the reasoning model in the pair, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Δ | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Claude Sonnet 4.669.1 | Margin← 18.1 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Math | Claude Sonnet 4.626.4 | Margin← 8.0 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Knowledge | Claude Sonnet 4.666.0 | Margin→ 7.9 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Agentic | Claude Sonnet 4.665.2 | Margin→ 0.2 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Multimodal | Claude Sonnet 4.677.4 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 95%B 73.9%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 21.1SuperGPQA: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 95%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 73.9%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 32.400%B 23.103%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 9.3FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 32.400%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 59.1%B 65.4%Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 6.3Terminal-Bench 2.0: Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 59.1%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 8.300%B 4.167%Winner: Claude Sonnet 4.6Δ 4.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Claude Sonnet 4.6 scored 8.300%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 4.167%. Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6$3 input / $15 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Claude Sonnet 4.644 tok/s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Claude Sonnet 4.61.48 s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Claude Sonnet 4.6200K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 59.1% | 65.4% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 72.1% | — | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | 67.8% | — | Not comparable |
| CyberGymSource | 65.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 79.5% | 95.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 62.92% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld 2.0Source | 8.3% | — | Not comparable |
| JobBenchSource | 36.9% | — | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 59.0% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1532 | Not comparable |
CodingClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 79.6% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 60.7% | — | Not comparable |
| React Native EvalsSource | 80.6% | — | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 51.48% | — | Not comparable |
| cursorBench31Source | 48.8% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 46.9% | 46.9% | Tie |
| FrontierCode 1.1 MainSource | 24.3% | — | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 57.3% | Not comparable |
| SciCodeSource | — | 47% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 42.9% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 65.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 89.9% | — | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | 95% | 73.9% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | 79.2% | — | Not comparable |
| HLESource | 49% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 35.9% | 40.0% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 79.9% | 88.8% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-HLESource | 13.2% | 28.9% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -2.9% | 10.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.0% | 37.7% | Claude Sonnet 4.6 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 65.9% | 44.2% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
MathClaude Sonnet 4.6 wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal3 benchmarks
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 4.6 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.2% | 76.6% | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (5)
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.07 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SuperGPQA, where the scores are 95% and 73.9%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 66. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.1 versus 51. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for math, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 26.4 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 65.2. Inside this category, τ²-bench results is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.