Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Open Prompt, OCR, and Image Captioning.
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 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 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
Claude Sonnet 5 is a mid-tier large language model from Anthropic, released on June 30, 2026, as the latest model in the Sonnet series and a direct successor to Claude Sonnet 4.6. It is a hybrid reasoning model designed primarily for agentic workflows, software coding, and professional tasks. The model features a 1 million token context window, a 128k maximum output token limit, and runs adaptive thinking by default, giving API users fine-grained control over reasoning effort across five levels (low, medium, high, max, and extra-high). It uses an updated tokenizer shared with Opus 4.7 and later models, which produces approximately 30% more tokens for equivalent text compared to earlier Claude models. On benchmarks, Sonnet 5 scores 63.2% on agentic coding and 81.2% on OSWorld, narrowing the gap with Opus 4.8 while remaining at Sonnet-tier pricing.
The model supports text and image input with text output, and accepts tools including browsers and terminals for autonomous multi-step task execution. Anthropic's safety evaluations report that Sonnet 5 shows a lower rate of undesirable behaviors than Sonnet 4.6 and is generally safer in agentic contexts, with improved resistance to prompt injection and reduced sycophancy. Cybersecurity safeguards equivalent to those on Opus 4.7 and 4.8 are active, though Anthropic notes the model was not deliberately trained on cybersecurity tasks. The model is proprietary and API-only, with no open weights.
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 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.195 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $1.56 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 70.15% | 71.64% |
| Avg Response Time | 3.90s | 1.98s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 2.1K | 1.2K |
| Median output tokens | 61 | 7 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0048 | $0.0002 |
| Defect Detection | 73.3%(11/15) | 80%(12/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | 40%(4/10) |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | 78.6%(11/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 78.9%(15/19) | 73.7%(14/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 83.84% | 85.59% |
| Avg Response Time | 2.77s | 8.51s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 642 | 126 |
| Median output tokens | 64 | 107 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0019 | $0.0002 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 88.9%(88/99) | 84.8%(84/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 50%(5/10) | 100%(10/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 90%(27/30) | 93.3%(28/30) |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | 80%(24/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 80%(48/60) | 83.3%(50/60) |
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