Qwen3.6 Plus vs SAM 3
Compare Qwen3.6 Plus and SAM 3 side-by-side.
Compare Qwen3.6 Plus vs SAM 3 live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.6 Plus vs SAM 3: Overview
Qwen3.6 Plus is a flagship model in Alibaba’s Qwen Plus series, designed for agentic workflows, coding, and multi-step reasoning. It supports a 1 million token context window and up to 65,536 output tokens, with built-in reasoning capabilities. The model is available as a hosted, proprietary API through Alibaba Cloud.
Compared to Qwen3.5, it improves reliability in multi-step execution and frontend code generation, with stronger performance on agentic coding tasks. It also supports document and image understanding, though its vision capabilities are more limited than dedicated Qwen-VL models. Qwen3.6 Plus is part of a broader Qwen ecosystem that includes both closed-source APIs and open-weight models.
Released on November 19th, 2025, Segment Anything 3 (SAM 3) is a zero-shot image segmentation model that “detects, segments, and tracks objects in images and videos based on concept prompts.” This model was developed by Meta as the third model in the Segment Anything series.
Unlike its previous SAM models (Segment Anything and Segment Anything 2), you can provide SAM 3 with the prompt “shipping container” and it will generate precise segmentation masks for all shipping containers in an image. SAM 3 generates segmentation masks that correspond to the location of the objects found with a text prompt.
Qwen3.6 Plus vs SAM 3 Comparison Table
| Property | Qwen3.6 Plus | SAM 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Meta |
| Category | closed | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Nov 2025 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | — |
| Parameters | ||
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.325 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.95 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Instance Segmentation | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Promptable Concept Segmentation | Demo | |
| Video Object Tracking | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Overall Score | 68.66% | |
| Avg Response Time | 34.17s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 47 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0005 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 20%(2/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 68.4%(13/19) | |
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