ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 Max Preview vs Claude Sonnet 4.5

Too close to call on our weighted score (Claude Sonnet 4.5 55, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 Max Preview

    Released Apr 20, 2026

    54/100
    • ECI149.2
    • Price$1.30 / $7.80
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 Max Preview

  2. Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 4.5

    Released Sep 29, 2025

    55/100
    • ECI146.8
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context200K
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 4.5

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Claude Sonnet 4.5 55/100, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.6 Max Preview for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.6 Max PreviewCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 · Claude Sonnet 4.5 146.8
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Sonnet 4.5 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 · Claude Sonnet 4.5 200,000 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text · Claude Sonnet 4.5: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 Max PreviewClaude Sonnet 4.5
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7774
Price25%2813
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%3732
Overall100%54/10055/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.6 Max Preview vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 4.5Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)149.2 (best)146.8
ECI rank#54 of 148 (best)#64 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions87.4% (best)82.3%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—23.9%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics91.1% (best)77.8%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues76.7% (best)71.3%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions52.0% (best)30.7%
Price per million tokens
Input$1.30 (best)$3.00
Output$7.80 (best)$15.00
Cached input$0.13 (best)$0.30
Blended (3:1)$2.92 (best)$6.00
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Anthropic API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens (best)200,000 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens (best)64,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDqwen3.6-max-previewclaude-sonnet-4-5
API providers1028 (best)
ReleasedApr 20, 2026Sep 29, 2025
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Jul 31, 2025
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.6 Max Preview$28.60
  • Claude Sonnet 4.5$60.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.6 Max Preview or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 1 points (Claude Sonnet 4.5 55/100, Qwen3.6 Max Preview 54/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.6 Max Preview for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 Max Preview or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 input / $7.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs $3.00 input / $15.00 output per million tokens (official Anthropic API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $2.92 per million tokens for Qwen3.6 Max Preview versus $6.00 for Claude Sonnet 4.5 (2.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148) and Claude Sonnet 4.5 146.8 (#64 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.6–152.0 vs 145.3–148.5), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%, Claude Sonnet 4.5 82.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%, Claude Sonnet 4.5 77.8%; SWE-bench Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%, Claude Sonnet 4.5 71.3%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 52.0%, Claude Sonnet 4.5 30.7%.

Which is better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview resolves more real GitHub issues on SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7% and Claude Sonnet 4.5 71.3%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 200,000 for Claude Sonnet 4.5. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536, Claude Sonnet 4.5 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text; Claude Sonnet 4.5 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 4.5 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Qwen3.6 Max Preview and Claude Sonnet 4.5 are proprietary and only available through APIs and apps.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the newest, released Apr 20, 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.5 came out Sep 29, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.6 Max Preview Apr 2025, Claude Sonnet 4.5 Jul 31, 2025.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons