Model Comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
vs. Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
50.0 reasoning / $0.82/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
50.0 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
34.9 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) is 12.5x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) leads Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) by 15.5 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) leads Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) by 4.7 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.30/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $2.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $0.82/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Oct 22, 2024 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 85.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1423ms |
| Latency | — | 24929ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 8.7 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 34.5 | 50.0 |
| Intelligence | 15.9 | 42.1 |
| Coding | 30.2 | 34.9 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 59.9% | 85.8% |
| MMLU Pro | 77.2% | — |
| HLE | 3.9% | 22.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 38.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 77.1% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 15.7% | — |
| SciCode | 36.6% | 39.5% |
| LCR | — | 67.3% |
| IFBench | — | 75.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 93.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 32.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 50.0 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) reaches a 34.9 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (Oct '24)
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
