Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 89.7% to 78.3%.
Overall, Claude Sonnet 5 averages 66.4% (#18 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0064 per sample), while Claude Sonnet 5 is faster (4.8s vs 6.3s per sample).
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated August 6, 2026Pricing updated August 11, 2026
| Property | Claude Sonnet 5 | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Anthropic | Qwen |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jun 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 1.0M |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $2.00 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $10.00 | $0.130 |
| 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% | 61.7% |
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0064 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 4.84s | 6.32s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 36.1% $0.011 | 42.8% $0.0001 |
| Counting | 56.8% $0.0030 | 46.0% <$0.0001 |
| Identification | 81.3% $0.0027 | 84.4% <$0.0001 |
| OCR | 91.7% $0.0078 | 84.1% $0.0001 |
| Data Extraction | 89.7% $0.0030 | 78.3% <$0.0001 |
| Reasoning (low) | 43.0% $0.0032 | 34.4% <$0.0001 |
| Reasoning (high) | 43.0% $0.0043 | 60.9% $0.0005 |
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen3.7 Flash: 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.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Claude Sonnet 5 performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 66.4% (#18 of 25) against 61.7% (#24 of 25) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark, Claude Sonnet 5 leads with 89.7% against 78.3%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0064. Claude Sonnet 5 is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $10.00 per 1M output; Qwen3.7 Flash is priced at $0.03 per 1M input tokens and $0.13 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 6.3s. 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 object detection and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.