Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 77.6% across five Vision Evals tasks and Qwen3.5 35B A3B 62.5% across four (#14 and #38 of 69 models), so Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads overall.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 wins all 4 tasks both ran, with its widest lead on reasoning (76.4% vs 54.1%).
- Qwen3.5 35B A3B is about a quarter of the cost: $0.0016 vs $0.0073 overall average cost per sample.
- Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster: 8.3s vs 31.9s per sample.
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B 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
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B on Vision Evals
Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B Comparison Table
Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.5 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | Unknown | 35B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Commercial use | commercial use per vendor terms | free for commercial use |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.140 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.00 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Classification | Demo | Supported |
| Object Detection | Demo | Supported |
| Model Features | ||
Both support 3 more features | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.6% | 62.5%* |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0073 | $0.0016 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.33s | 31.88s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.3% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3 | 52.9% ±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9 |
| Object Detection (high) | 76.8% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 76.5 to 77.3 | – |
| Counting (low) | 79.3% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.4 to 79.7 | 62.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 |
| Counting (high) | 82.9% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.1 to 83.8 | – |
| Identification (low) | 91.7% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 87.5 to 93.8 | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR | 66.3% | – |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 76.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8 | 54.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3 |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4 | – |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.5 35B A3B: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is a proprietary multimodal language model from Anthropic and the second release in the Claude 5.5 family, following Claude Opus 5.5. It accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text, operating with a 1M token context window and a maximum output of 128K tokens per request. The model uses adaptive thinking by default, allocating variable reasoning effort per request rather than exposing a manual extended thinking toggle, and its training data cutoff is June 2026. Anthropic positions it as a faster, lower cost complement to Opus 5.5 for well scoped everyday tasks, bug fixing, and producing documents, slides, and spreadsheets.
Anthropic describes it as the first Sonnet model able to complete Pokemon Red from screenshots alone, and it generates output more than 30% faster than Sonnet 5 while using fewer tokens for equivalent work.
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 77.6% (#14 of 69) against 62.5% (#38 of 69) for Qwen3.5 35B A3B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads with 76.4% against 54.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0016 per sample against $0.0073. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Sonnet 5.5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 8.3s per inference against 31.9s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.