Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Anthropic: Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5-Flash

The average score is effectively tied at 6.3 vs 6.2. Qwen3.5-Flash (medium) has the lower benchmark cost at $0.139 vs $0.548. Claude Sonnet 5 is faster at 6.04s vs 84.82s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 69.7%.

Recommended modelClaude Sonnet 5It has the best score here (6.3), while responding about 14.0x faster than Qwen3.5-Flash (medium).

Last updated at: 2026-07-17

Metric Claude Sonnet 5 Claude Sonnet 5 none Release: 2026-06-30 Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash medium Release: 2026-02-24
Score 6.3 6.2
Rank #106 #108
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.7 7.8
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 69.7%
Flaky tests 4 6
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 6.840 1.361
Total Cost $0.548 $0.139
Input Price $2.000 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $10.000 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 161,035 118,499
Output Tokens 22,511 12,284
Reasoning Tokens 0 490,610
Response Time (avg) 6.04s 84.82s
Response Time (max) 33.39s 515.38s
Response Time (total) 132.85s 1781.22s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#106 Claude Sonnet 5

none
Cost
$0.061
Time
53.7s
Tokens
6,172 tok

#108 Qwen3.5-Flash

medium
Cost
$0.002
Time
25.8s
Tokens
4,294 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Claude Sonnet 5 4.6 7.9 22.2% 1 3.67s 10,590 1,864 0
Qwen3.5-Flash 3.7 7.2 22.2% 1 58.87s 6,685 302 90,081

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair