ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.6 Max Preview vs Claude Sonnet 4.6

Claude Sonnet 4.6 comes out ahead, 62 to 54 on our weighted score, though Qwen3.6 Max Preview is 2.1× cheaper per token.

  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. Our pick

    Anthropic

    Claude Sonnet 4.6

    Released Feb 17, 2026

    62/100
    • ECI152.3
    • Price$3.00 / $15.00
    • Context1M
    Full specs Remove Claude Sonnet 4.6

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is our pick

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityClaude Sonnet 4.6Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 4.6 152.3 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2
  • Lowest priceQwen3.6 Max PreviewQwen3.6 Max Preview $2.92 · Claude Sonnet 4.6 $6.00 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextClaude Sonnet 4.6Claude Sonnet 4.6 1,000,000 · Qwen3.6 Max Preview 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsClaude Sonnet 4.6Qwen3.6 Max Preview: Text · Claude Sonnet 4.6: Text, Images, PDFs
  • Self-hostingNo open weightsBoth are available only through APIs
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.6 Max PreviewClaude Sonnet 4.6
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7781
Price25%2813
Inputs & features15%3580
Context window10%3760
Overall100%54/10062/100
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 4.6 specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.6 Max PreviewAlibaba (Qwen)Claude Sonnet 4.6Anthropic
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)149.2152.3 (best)
ECI rank#54 of 148#40 of 148 (best)
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions87.4%87.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics91.1% (best)85.8%
SWE-bench VerifiedFixing real GitHub issues76.7% (best)75.2%
SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions52.0% (best)35.5%
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 tokens1,000,000 tokens (best)
Max output65,536 tokens (best)64,000 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesNoYes
PDFsNoYes
AudioNoNo
VideoNoNo
ReasoningYesYeslow · medium · high · max
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputNoYes
Availability
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
API model IDqwen3.6-max-previewclaude-sonnet-4-6
API providers1041 (best)
ReleasedApr 20, 2026Feb 17, 2026
Knowledge cutoffApr 2025Aug 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 4.6$60.00
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.6 Max Preview or Claude Sonnet 4.6?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 is the better all-round choice, scoring 62/100 against Qwen3.6 Max Preview (54). It leads on capability, inputs & features and context window. Qwen3.6 Max Preview wins on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 Max Preview or Claude Sonnet 4.6?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 input / $7.80 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 (2.1× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Claude Sonnet 4.6 152.3 (#40 of 148) and Qwen3.6 Max Preview 149.2 (#54 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (149.6–154.7 vs 147.6–152.0), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 87.4%, Claude Sonnet 4.6 87.4%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 91.1%, Claude Sonnet 4.6 85.8%; SWE-bench Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 76.7%, Claude Sonnet 4.6 75.2%; SimpleQA Verified — Qwen3.6 Max Preview 52.0%, Claude Sonnet 4.6 35.5%.

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 4.6 75.2%. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Claude Sonnet 4.6 has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.6 Max Preview. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.6 Max Preview up to 65,536, Claude Sonnet 4.6 up to 64,000 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts text; Claude Sonnet 4.6 accepts text, images and PDFs. Claude Sonnet 4.6 handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

No. Qwen3.6 Max Preview and Claude Sonnet 4.6 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 4.6 came out Feb 17, 2026. Knowledge cutoff: Qwen3.6 Max Preview Apr 2025, Claude Sonnet 4.6 Aug 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