Model Comparison
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24)
vs. Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
41.9 reasoning / $0.84/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
$0.38/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
41.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24)
26.0 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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) is 10x cheaper on input tokens than Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24) by 11.3 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24) leads Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) by 8.4 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) wins 9 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 (June '24)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | An Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.75/1M | $0.38/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $2.25/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.56/1M | $0.84/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Jun 21, 2024 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 140.5 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1307ms |
| Latency | — | 1307ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 9.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 30.6 | 41.9 |
| Intelligence | 14.2 | 31.5 |
| Coding | 26.0 | 17.6 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 56.0% | 81.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 75.1% | — |
| HLE | 3.7% | 12.5% |
| MATH 500 | 69.5% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 9.7% | — |
| SciCode | 31.6% | 1.3% |
| LCR | — | 56.7% |
| IFBench | — | 36.2% |
| TAU-bench v2 | — | 85.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | — | 25.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.38/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 41.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet (June '24) reaches a 26.0 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 (June '24)
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
