Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen3.5 27B 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 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
Claude 4 Sonnet, released by Anthropic in May 2025, is the mid-tier model in the Claude 4 family, designed to balance capability, cost, and speed. It is multimodal, accepting both text and images, and extends beyond prior versions with improved “computer use” support, allowing API-driven interaction with desktop-like interfaces. By default, it supports 200,000 tokens of context, but as of August 2025, it also offers a 1 million-token context window in public beta—making it one of the most context-capable models available for processing entire codebases or large document sets in a single request.
Sonnet 4 is significantly cheaper than the flagship Opus while still demonstrating strong reasoning, coding, and instruction-following ability with reduced hallucinations. Its extended context capabilities and lower latency make it well-suited for enterprise-scale knowledge management, software development, research assistants, and productivity automation where both cost efficiency and high reliability are essential.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
Claude Sonnet 4 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 4 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | May 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $3.00 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $15.00 | $1.56 |
| 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% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | 71.64% |
| Avg Response Time | 21.26s | 1.98s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 88.9%(8/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
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