Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus

At a Glance

Compare
Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency
IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v2.5#24 of 4660.3 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 46-model eligible cohort
CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate#31 of 44$0.198 per LiveBench caseUnrankedNot in the 44-model eligible cohort
EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.5#31 of 3847.3 score · 3/3 sources · completeUnrankedNot in the 38-model eligible cohort
Pricing and Limits
Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$3.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$0.32Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026
Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens$15.00Anthropic · Sep 3, 2026$1.28Openrouter · Sep 22, 2026
Context windowMaximum documented tokens1,000K1,000K
Model facts checkedSep 3, 2026View model evidence →Aug 29, 2026View model evidence →

Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →

Available Benchmarks

All benchmark results →
BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7-Plus
LMArena Agent Arenaagent-2026-09-15-d25aabda0010 · outcome_score · leader-1.52100% of row best · score · Claude Sonnet 4.6; 95% CI [-2.63863180, -0.39612153]; sessions 39452; observations 1444102; rank 31-6.0895% of row best · score · Qwen3.7 Plus; 95% CI [-7.29245632, -4.87295146]; sessions 20905; observations 993739; rank 40
LMArena Document Arenadocument-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · leader1,482.24100% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-4-6; 95% CI [1476.36427265, 1488.10617859]; votes 57813; rank 111,444.1497% of row best · rating · qwen3.7-plus; 95% CI [1435.12302267, 1453.16578005]; votes 4591; rank 30
LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,458.26100% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-4-6; 95% CI [1454.67519650, 1461.85096774]; votes 66208; rank 351,454.20100% of row best · rating · qwen3.7-plus; 95% CI [1449.75378609, 1458.63820942]; votes 39334; rank 39
LMArena Vision Arenavision-2026-09-13-d25aabda0010 · arena_rating · statistical tie1,282.72100% of row best · rating · claude-sonnet-4-6; 95% CI [1276.36460283, 1289.07266013]; votes 25552; rank 271,277.81100% of row best · rating · qwen3.7-plus; 95% CI [1270.28208926, 1285.34488566]; votes 10656; rank 31
Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above · 2 ties2 benchmark winsNo overall winner0 benchmark winsNo overall winner

Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.

Side-by-Side Facts

FieldClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7-Plus
DeveloperAnthropicQwen
FamilyClaude 4Qwen3 7 Plus
ModelClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7-Plus
VersionClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.7-Plus
Lifecycleactiveactive
Released2026-02-17Unknown
Knowledge cutoff2025-08-01Unknown
Input modalitiesText, ImageText, Image, Video
Output modalitiesTextText
Context window1,000K1,000K
Total parametersUnknownUnknown
Active parametersUnknownUnknown
LicenseUnknownUnknown
Open weightsNoNo
API availableYesYes
Self-hostableNoNo
Provider accessAnthropic (Standard), Deepinfra (Standard)Alibaba Cloud Model Studio (Standard), Fireworks Ai (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard)
Capabilitieschat, generation, reasoning, structured_outputs, toolsagents, chat, computer-use, reasoning, structured_outputs, tools, vision

Claude Sonnet 4.6 Capabilities

chatgenerationreasoningstructured outputstools
Serving providers2
Canonical IDanthropic/claude-sonnet-4-6

Qwen3.7 Plus Capabilities

agentschatcomputer-usereasoningstructured outputstoolsvision
Serving providers4
Canonical IDqwen/qwen3.7-plus

Primary Evidence

Sources and Freshness

Questions

Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.7 Plus FAQs

Is Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?+

This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $3.00 and Qwen3.7 Plus is $0.32 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on this metric. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is $15.00 and Qwen3.7 Plus is $1.28 per million tokens, so Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper on this metric.

Which has a larger context window, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

Neither model has a larger sourced context window in this comparison. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is 1,000K and Qwen3.7 Plus is 1,000K.

Which performs better in benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

There is no overall benchmark winner: An overall winner requires at least two decisive benchmarks from at least two original publishers.

Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus be self-hosted?+

Both models have the same recorded self-hosting status: unsupported. Claude Sonnet 4.6 is not marked open weight; Qwen3.7 Plus is not marked open weight.

Can Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus understand images?+

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is documented with image input; Qwen3.7 Plus is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.

Which can generate longer answers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger sourced maximum output: Claude Sonnet 4.6 supports 128K and Qwen3.7 Plus supports 131K output tokens.

Do Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.7 Plus support reasoning and tool use?+

Claude Sonnet 4.6: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.7 Plus: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.

Which is available from more inference providers, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has 2 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.7 Plus has 4, so Qwen3.7 Plus has broader tracked availability.

Which offers better value, Claude Sonnet 4.6 or Qwen3.7 Plus?+

There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.

Send Feedback