Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick Qwen 3.7 Max for long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7) or 1m-token long-document and full-codebase analysis. On a tight budget at scale, Qwen 3.7 Max is the value pick.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic, US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (Alibaba, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Qwen 3.7 Max is alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Price: nearly identical — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
Context window: Qwen 3.7 Max holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Qwen 3.7 Max is the newer model by about 8 months (released May 20, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Specifications
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Qwen 3.7 Max
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 29, 2025
May 20, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch): Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7): Qwen 3.7 Max — Its 1M window holds about 5× more than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K in a single prompt.
1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis: Qwen 3.7 Max — Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it runs cheaper at $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
MCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs: Qwen 3.7 Max — Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Lowest cost at scale: Qwen 3.7 Max — At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input: Qwen 3.7 Max — Its 1M window is about 5× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Qwen 3.7 Max — At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Qwen 3.7 Max — Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch: Claude Sonnet 4.5 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7): Qwen 3.7 Max — That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules: Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max — Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Qwen 3.7 Max: where it fits
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Released May 20, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7), 1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis, mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs, and frontier intelligence at roughly half the price of US flagships.
Its trade-offs: text-only — no vision input (the Plus variant adds images), closed-weight, API-only — no self-hosting, trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning, and chinese-jurisdiction data-residency considerations. At $2.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Claude Sonnet 4.5 (US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Qwen 3.7 Max is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Qwen 3.7 Max, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while Qwen 3.7 Max leans toward long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max is cheaper — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.2× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen 3.7 Max — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, Qwen 3.7 Max and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max — released May 20, 2026, about 8 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen 3.7 Max
Anthropic · US | Alibaba · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Claude Sonnet 4.5 for agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch or computer use and gui automation (61.4% osworld at launch). Pick Qwen 3.7 Max for long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7) or 1m-token long-document and full-codebase analysis. On a tight budget at scale, Qwen 3.7 Max is the value pick.
Claude Sonnet 4.5 (Anthropic, US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (Alibaba, China) line up two different AI ecosystems against each other — a comparison that is as much about cost philosophy and openness as raw capability. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is september 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Qwen 3.7 Max is alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. They diverge most on price and context window — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Price: nearly identical — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens. Cost will not be the deciding factor here.
▸Context window: Qwen 3.7 Max holds 5× more — 1M (~1,500 pages) vs 200K (~300 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Qwen 3.7 Max is the newer model by about 8 months (released May 20, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
▸Ecosystem: this is a US-vs-China matchup — they differ in pricing philosophy, data-residency options, and tooling ecosystems, not only benchmarks.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Qwen 3.7 Max
Provider
Anthropic (US)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 29, 2025
May 20, 2026
Context window
200K (~300 pages)
1M (~1,500 pages)
Price (in/out)
$3/$15 per 1M tokens
$2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens
Open weight?
No — API only
No — API only
Modalities
text, image, code
text, code
SWE-Bench Verified
77.2%
Not published
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch)
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch) among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks
Claude Sonnet 4.5
Claude Sonnet 4.5 lists long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks among its strengths; Qwen 3.7 Max does not.
Long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7)
Qwen 3.7 Max
Its 1M window holds about 5× more than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K in a single prompt.
1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis
Qwen 3.7 Max
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it runs cheaper at $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens.
MCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs
Qwen 3.7 Max
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships — and it carries the larger 1M context.
Lowest cost at scale
Qwen 3.7 Max
At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, it is the cheaper of the two — the gap dominates the bill on high-volume workloads.
Largest single-prompt input
Qwen 3.7 Max
Its 1M window is about 5× larger than Claude Sonnet 4.5's 200K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Qwen 3.7 Max
At $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens it undercuts Claude Sonnet 4.5, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Qwen 3.7 Max
Larger 1M window fits more in one prompt.
Anyone whose priority is agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7)
→ Qwen 3.7 Max
That is its strongest area.
An enterprise with regional data-residency rules
→ Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max
Origin (US vs China) affects where data is processed and which compliance regime applies — check the provider's terms for your region.
Claude Sonnet 4.5: where it fits
September 2025's coding state of the art at $3/$15 — still supported, but 200K-capped and twice superseded. Released September 29, 2025 by Anthropic, it is built for agentic coding — 77.2% on SWE-Bench Verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch, computer use and GUI automation (61.4% OSWorld at launch), long-horizon autonomy — Anthropic reported 30+ hours of sustained focus on multi-step tasks, and tracking its own remaining token budget natively, which few models do.
Its trade-offs are real: superseded twice — Sonnet 4.6 and Sonnet 5 match or beat it at the same or lower price, capped at 200K since Anthropic retired its 1M beta in April 2026, while its successors ship 1M as standard, and missing the modern API surface: no adaptive thinking, no effort control, and half the max output of newer Sonnets. At $3 in / $15 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
Qwen 3.7 Max: where it fits
Alibaba's agent-first frontier model — a 1M-token context and long-horizon coding at about half the cost of US flagships. Released May 20, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for long-horizon agentic coding (SWE-Bench Pro 60.6, Terminal-Bench 2.0 69.7), 1M-token long-document and full-codebase analysis, mCP tool orchestration and multi-hour autonomous runs, and frontier intelligence at roughly half the price of US flagships.
Its trade-offs: text-only — no vision input (the Plus variant adds images), closed-weight, API-only — no self-hosting, trails GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus on the hardest one-shot reasoning, and chinese-jurisdiction data-residency considerations. At $2.5 in / $7.5 out per million tokens, it sits in the mid price band.
The bottom line for this matchup
This is less "which is smarter" and more "which ecosystem fits." Claude Sonnet 4.5 (US) and Qwen 3.7 Max (China) differ on pricing philosophy, data-residency, and tooling as much as on raw scores. Qwen 3.7 Max is the cheaper option, which matters at volume. The pragmatic move is to run one real task through both and judge the outputs against your own constraints — including where your data is allowed to be processed.
Want both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Qwen 3.7 Max, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leans toward agentic coding — 77.2% on swe-bench verified, the best score any model had posted at its launch while Qwen 3.7 Max leans toward long-horizon agentic coding (swe-bench pro 60.6, terminal-bench 2.0 69.7), and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max is cheaper — $3/$15 per 1M tokens vs $2.5/$7.5 per 1M tokens, roughly 1.2× apart on input.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen 3.7 Max — 1M vs 200K, about 5× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen 3.7 Max together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Claude Sonnet 4.5, Qwen 3.7 Max and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen 3.7 Max?
Qwen 3.7 Max — released May 20, 2026, about 8 months after Claude Sonnet 4.5.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.