Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B are closely matched at 37.1 and 35.1 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is 7.3x cheaper per token.
Anthropic · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 37.1 and 35.1.
In the 7 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Claude Sonnet 4.6 wins 6; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is roughly 7.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Claude Sonnet 4.6
- your work emphasizes agents — it leads those capability indexes
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 6 of 7 exact shared results
Choose Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
- cost matters — it's about 7.3x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Feb 2026
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
1 more shared indexes
Individual benchmarks
17 reported for Claude Sonnet 4.6 · 81 for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Claude Sonnet 4.6 outperforms in 6 benchmarks (BrowseComp, GPQA, Humanity's Last Exam, MMMLU, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0), while Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is better at 1 benchmark (MMMU-Pro).
Claude Sonnet 4.6 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Claude Sonnet 4.6 ($3.00/1M tokens) is 10.3x more expensive than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ($0.29/1M tokens).
For output processing, Claude Sonnet 4.6 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 6.3x more expensive than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ($2.40/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Claude Sonnet 4.6 is more expensive than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to Claude Sonnet 4.6's 200,000 tokens. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Claude Sonnet 4.6 is limited to 64,000 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3.5-122B-A10B uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Claude Sonnet 4.6 was released on 2026-02-17, while Qwen3.5-122B-A10B was released on 2026-02-24.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is 0 month newer than Claude Sonnet 4.6.
Feb 17, 2026
6 months ago
Feb 24, 2026
6 months ago
1w newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Claude Sonnet 4.6 is available from Anthropic, DeepInfra. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is available from DeepInfra, Novita.
Claude Sonnet 4.6
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Claude Sonnet 4.6 vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.