Model Comparison
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct
vs. Sonar Reasoning
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, Perplexity
Recommended Pick
PeSonar Reasoning6 metric winsStrongest on: Input price, Output price, TTFT
Lowest Price
Sonar Reasoning
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Sonar Reasoning
60.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Sonar Reasoning is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Sonar Reasoning leads Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct by 1.2 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Sonar Reasoning wins 6 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, TTFT, Latency.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Sonar Reasoning
Perplexity
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct | Top Pick Pe Sonar Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.80/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Perplexity |
| Release Date | Jul 21, 2025 | Jan 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 67.2 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1201ms | — |
| Latency | 1201ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 59.6 | 60.8 |
| Intelligence | 18.2 | 11.7 |
| Math | 71.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 75.3% | 62.3% |
| MMLU Pro | 82.8% | — |
| HLE | 10.6% | — |
| LiveCodeBench | 52.4% | — |
| MATH 500 | 98.0% | 92.1% |
| AIME 2025 | 71.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 71.7% | 77.0% |
| SciCode | 36.0% | — |
| LCR | 31.2% | — |
| IFBench | 46.1% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 33.3% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 15.2% | — |
Key Takeaways
Sonar Reasoning offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Sonar Reasoning has the strongest reasoning profile with a 60.8 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 Instruct
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Sonar Reasoning
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
