Model Comparison
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
vs. Sonar
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba, Perplexity
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)10 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Sonar
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
69.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
22.1 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Sonar is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) leads Sonar by 30.9 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Sonar
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 | Top Pick Al Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) | Pe Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $8.40/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.63/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Perplexity |
| Release Date | Jul 25, 2025 | Jan 21, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 68.2 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1270ms | — |
| Latency | 30609ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 69.7 | 38.8 |
| Intelligence | 19.6 | 9.5 |
| Coding | 22.1 | — |
| Math | 91.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.0% | 47.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 84.3% | 68.9% |
| HLE | 15.0% | 7.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 78.8% | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | 98.4% | 81.7% |
| AIME 2025 | 91.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 94.0% | 48.7% |
| SciCode | 42.4% | 22.9% |
| LCR | 67.0% | — |
| IFBench | 51.2% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 53.2% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 13.6% | — |
Key Takeaways
Sonar offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 69.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) reaches a 22.1 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
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Sonar
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
