Model Comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort)
vs. Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 7 benchmarks · Anthropic, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) 12 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
5.8 reasoning / $0.02/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
$0.01/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort)
41.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort)
43.0 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
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) is 300x cheaper on input tokens than Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort).
Speed gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) generates about 2.2x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) by 35.8 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) by 43.0 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort)
Anthropic
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick An Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) | Al Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $3.00/1M | $0.01/1M |
| Output Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.05/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $6.00/1M | $0.02/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Anthropic | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 17, 2026 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 50.3 tok/s | 22.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1052ms | 451ms |
| Latency | 1052ms | 88284ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 2.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 41.6 | 5.8 |
| Intelligence | 34.3 | 5.0 |
| Coding | 43.0 | 0.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.7% | 11.1% |
| HLE | 10.8% | 1.2% |
| SciCode | 44.1% | 0.0% |
| LCR | 58.7% | 5.3% |
| IFBench | 42.4% | 21.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 78.9% | 47.7% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 42.4% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.01/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 41.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Claude Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort) reaches a 43.0 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 Sonnet 4.6 (Non-reasoning, Low Effort)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
