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 Object Detection, Open Prompt, OCR, Classification, 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.
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 vs Qwen3.5 27B on Vision Evals
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on 5 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Object Detection, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 58.8% to 36.1%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#21 of 30) against 64.3% (#26 of 30) for Qwen3.5 27B.
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0064 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5 is faster (4.8s vs 7.4s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 19, 2026
| 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 |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 66.4% | 64.3% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0064 | $0.0007 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.84s | 7.38s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 36.1% $0.011 | 58.8% $0.0013 |
| Counting | 56.8% $0.0030 | 54.0% $0.0002 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0027 | 78.1% $0.0002 |
| OCR | 91.7% $0.0078 | 84.5% $0.0009 |
| Data Extraction | 89.7% $0.0030 | 78.3% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (low) | 43.0% $0.0032 | 31.8% $0.0002 |
| Reasoning (high) | 43.0% $0.0043 | 61.6% $0.0065 |
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.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5 performed better. It scores higher on 5 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.4% (#21 of 30) against 64.3% (#26 of 30) for Qwen3.5 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark, Qwen3.5 27B leads with 58.8% against 36.1%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Claude Sonnet 5 is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 4.8s per inference against 7.4s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.