Claude 3.7 Sonnet vs Qwen3.5 Omni Plus
Wins 0 of 7 areas
—
Wins 5 of 7 areas
Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus is the stronger all-rounder.
Scores updated · 16 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the seven areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3.5 Omni Plus2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01Qwen3.5 Omni Plus1 of 1 test
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video01Qwen3.5 Omni Plus1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.5 Omni Plus1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.5 Omni Plus1 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software00Even0 each · 2 ties
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Agents, images and charts, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus costs 71% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.5 Omni Plus pulls ahead
Where Claude 3.7 Sonnet pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+10.6points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 16 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
ReasoningQwen3.5 Omni Plus
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 5.477.282.6+5.4
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 5.29.714.9+5.2
- CritPttie0.90.6tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 10.62817.4+10.6
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 36063+3
Images and chartsQwen3.5 Omni Plus
- MMMU-ProQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 10.460.170.5+10.4
Following instructionsQwen3.5 Omni Plus
- IFBenchQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 2.948.351.2+2.9
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.5 Omni Plus by 33.654.788.3+33.6
- AA Agentic IndexQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 15.83752.8+15.8
- AA-OmniscienceClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 12.4-0.7-13.1+12.4
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexClaude 3.7 Sonnet by 8.836.427.6+8.8
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.5 Omni Plus by 2.717.720.4+2.7
Questions people ask
Which is better, Claude 3.7 Sonnet or Qwen3.5 Omni Plus?
Qwen3.5 Omni Plus wins five of the seven areas where both have results: agents, reasoning, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Claude 3.7 Sonnet wins none. They are level on coding and facts.
Which is better for coding?
Neither. All 2 coding tests both models report are ties.
Which is cheaper?
Claude 3.7 Sonnet costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 Omni Plus costs $0.40 and $4.80. That makes Qwen3.5 Omni Plus about 71% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 16 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.