Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 and Qwen3.7 Plus side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, Classification, Object Detection, and Open Prompt.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus on Vision Evals
Claude Sonnet 5.5 scores higher on all five Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Claude Sonnet 5.5 leads 76.4% to 39.7%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5.5 averages 77.6% (#8 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus.
Qwen3.7 Plus is both cheaper ($0.0008 vs $0.0073 per sample) and faster (7.8s vs 8.3s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus Comparison Table
Evals updated October 8, 2026Pricing updated October 9, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5.5 | Qwen3.7 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | — |
| Release Date | Sep 2026 | Jun 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | Unknown | Unknown |
| License | Proprietary | Unknown |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.320 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.28 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Not listed |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Not listed |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Vision Language | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Not listed |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Not listed |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Not listed |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 77.6% | 58.9% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0073 | $0.0008 |
| Avg speed / sample | 8.33s | 7.77s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 74.3% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 73.5 to 75.3 | 60.1% |
| 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 | 50.0% |
| 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 | 84.4% |
| Identification (high) | 90.6% ±0.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.6 to 90.6 | – |
| OCR (low) | 66.3% | 60.3% |
| by category |
|
|
| OCR (high) | – | 65.5% |
| by category |
| |
| Reasoning (low) | 76.4% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 75.5 to 76.8 | 39.7% |
| Reasoning (high) | 83.9% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.1 to 85.4 | 68.2% |
Claude Sonnet 5.5 vs Qwen3.7 Plus: 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.
On visual and agentic evaluations reported at launch, Sonnet 5.5 scores 61.6% on Chartography, a chart recognition test, compared with 15.6% for Claude Sonnet 5, and 80.1% on OSWorld 2.1, a computer use benchmark measuring screenshot driven control of a desktop environment, compared with 57.0% for Sonnet 5. It reports 70.6% on Terminal-Bench 4.0 for agentic coding. 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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5.5 performed better. It scores higher on all five vision tasks and averages 77.6% (#8 of 61) against 58.9% (#35 of 61) for Qwen3.7 Plus. 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 39.7%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0008 per sample against $0.0073. Claude Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Plus is priced at $0.32 per 1M input tokens and $1.28 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Plus is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.8s per inference against 8.3s. 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.