Compare / Qwen3.7-Max vs Claude Sonnet 4.5

Qwen3.7-Max vs Claude Sonnet 4.5

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 13 results on 2 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3.7-Max Released 19 May 2026 · $1.48 in · $4.42 out
AnthropicClaude Sonnet 4.5 Released 29 Sep 2025 · $3.00 in · $15.00 out
Qwen3.7-Max wins 12Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 1

Of the 13 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs Anthropic, every model from both labs.

Qwen3.7-Max or Claude Sonnet 4.5? The short answer

Pick Qwen3.7-Max: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.5 against 20.7) and costs less.

  • Qwen3.7-Max is cheaper: $2.21 against $6.00 per million tokens, 2.7 times less.
  • Qwen3.7-Max scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 29.5 against 20.7.
  • Qwen3.7-Max is newer: released 19 May 2026, against 29 Sep 2025 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.7-Max does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and sticking to the facts.

Head to head

29.5
Intelligence Index
20.7
$2.21
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$6.00
1,000,000
Context window, tokens
1,000,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3.7-MaxClaude Sonnet 4.5
Price per million tokens$1.48 in · $4.42 out$3.00 in · $15.00 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$2.21$6.00
Cheapest host, blended–$6.00 (Amazon Bedrock)
Intelligence Index29.520.7
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window1,000,000 tokens1,000,000 tokens
Released19 May 2026 (newer)29 Sep 2025
WeightsClosedClosed
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 69 of 164 99 of 164
Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects not measured 40 of 51
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 39 of 198 98 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality not measured 34 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 31 of 152 101 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3.7-MaxClaude Sonnet 4.5
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 53 · 101 of 243 measured 29.5 20.7thinking reasoning
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 21 · 94 of 231 measured 92.3% 83.4%thinking reasoning
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 39 · 116 of 242 measured 40.5% 17.8%thinking reasoning
SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result
Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 18 · 58 of 76 measured 55.8% 30.7%thinking-59k reasoning
Show all 13 results (9 more)
MeasureQwen3.7-MaxClaude Sonnet 4.5
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 9 results
Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 33 · 53 of 130 measured 74.5% 55.8%thinking reasoning
Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 51 · 66 of 112 measured 1.5% 0.0%thinking reasoning
τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 71 · 40 of 121 measured 11.8% 24.5%thinking reasoning
Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 34 · 55 of 131 measured 66.0 52.1thinking reasoning
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 5 · 85 of 195 measured 80.5% 57.3%thinking reasoning
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 50 · 96 of 233 measured 79.0% 72.3%thinking reasoning
SciCode% of problems, higher is better 52 · 62 of 113 measured 49.5% 45.7%thinking reasoning
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 12 · 47 of 190 measured 50.8% 35.6%thinking reasoning
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 22 · 73 of 193 measured 94.7% 78.1%thinking reasoning

Quick answers

Is Qwen3.7-Max better than Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Pick Qwen3.7-Max: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 29.5 against 20.7) and costs less.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.7-Max or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Qwen3.7-Max is cheaper: $2.21 against $6.00 per million tokens, 2.7 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.7-Max or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Qwen3.7-Max ranks 69 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 99 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.7-Max or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Qwen3.7-Max ranks 39 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 98 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.7-Max or Claude Sonnet 4.5?

Qwen3.7-Max ranks 31 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 101 for Claude Sonnet 4.5.

Run Qwen3.7-Max and Claude Sonnet 4.5 on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.

Try the playgroundTalk to us