Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3.6 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus: Overview
Claude Sonnet 4.5, released by Anthropic in September 2025, is the company’s most advanced Sonnet-series model, built for high-performance reasoning, coding, and long-horizon agentic workflows. It is a multimodal system that accepts both text and images, with a 200,000-token context window designed for handling large documents and extended interactions. Anthropic highlights its improvements in reliability, reduced sycophancy, and alignment, making it suitable for sustained enterprise use.
The model delivers strong results in coding and autonomous workflows, achieving 61.4% on the OSWorld benchmark and leading performance on SWE-bench Verified. It introduces infrastructure features such as a memory tool (beta), checkpointing for Claude Code, parallel tool use, and tighter integration with VS Code. Compared to Opus, which targets broader reasoning, Sonnet 4.5 is optimized for structured, long-duration tasks. Positioned against leading offerings from OpenAI and Google, it is aimed at enterprise automation, software engineering, and research-intensive applications.
Qwen3.6 Plus is a flagship model in Alibaba’s Qwen Plus series, designed for agentic workflows, coding, and multi-step reasoning. It supports a 1 million token context window and up to 65,536 output tokens, with built-in reasoning capabilities. The model is available as a hosted, proprietary API through Alibaba Cloud.
Compared to Qwen3.5, it improves reliability in multi-step execution and frontend code generation, with stronger performance on agentic coding tasks. It also supports document and image understanding, though its vision capabilities are more limited than dedicated Qwen-VL models. Qwen3.6 Plus is part of a broader Qwen ecosystem that includes both closed-source APIs and open-weight models.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3.6 Plus Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2025 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 200K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $0.325 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $1.95 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 59.7% | 68.66% |
| Avg Response Time | 5.67s | 34.17s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.2K | 1.2K |
| Median output tokens | 182 | 47 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0092 | $0.0005 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 86.7%(13/15) |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 10%(1/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 63.2%(12/19) | 68.4%(13/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 67.25% | 58.52% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.93s | 5.49s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 735 | 124 |
| Median output tokens | 115 | 18 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0039 | $0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 71.7%(71/99) | 76.8%(76/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 20%(2/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 53.3%(16/30) | 13.3%(4/30) |
| Text Recognition | 66.7%(20/30) | 50%(15/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 75%(45/60) | 51.7%(31/60) |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology