Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Qwen3-Max Max: which model should you choose?

We compared Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3-Max Max on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. Claude Sonnet 4.5 has the stronger average benchmark score; Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.

Anthropic

Claude Sonnet 4.5

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is a frontier model from Anthropic. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $17.84 per million input tokens and $70.50 per million output tokens, and averages 86.0 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$17.84 / 1M
Output
$70.50 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
86.0
Open weights
No
Full Claude Sonnet 4.5 page
Alibaba Cloud

Qwen3-Max Max

Qwen3-Max Max is a frontier model from Alibaba Cloud. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $18.53 per million input tokens and $74.05 per million output tokens, and averages 85.9 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$18.53 / 1M
Output
$74.05 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
85.9
Open weights
No
Full Qwen3-Max Max page

Specification comparison

SpecClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3-Max MaxEdge
Input price / 1M$17.84$18.53A
Output price / 1M$70.50$74.05A
Context window400,000400,000Tie
Max output128,00065,536A
Average score86.085.9A
Arena Elo1478.21467.7A
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 6, Qwen3-Max Max wins 6, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3-Max MaxGapWinner
MMLU-Pro88.085.22.8Claude Sonnet 4.5
GPQA Diamond82.683.81.2Qwen3-Max Max
SWE-bench Verified74.274.30.1Qwen3-Max Max
HumanEval92.790.22.5Claude Sonnet 4.5
MATH-50087.092.85.8Qwen3-Max Max
AIME 202586.382.73.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
LiveCodeBench82.582.80.3Qwen3-Max Max
IFEval91.193.72.6Qwen3-Max Max
TruthfulQA87.289.32.1Qwen3-Max Max
HellaSwag93.091.41.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
MMMU80.978.92.0Claude Sonnet 4.5
Arena Elo1478.21467.710.5Claude Sonnet 4.5

Price analysis

On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, Claude Sonnet 4.5 costs about $31.00 per million tokens and Qwen3-Max Max costs about $32.41. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is roughly 4% cheaper than Qwen3-Max Max. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.

Both models list a 400,000-token context window. That is enough for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.

Verdict

Across 12 shared benchmarks, Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 6, Qwen3-Max Max wins 6, and 0 are tied. On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads Qwen3-Max Max by 0.1 points (86.0 versus 85.9).

The price picture favours Claude Sonnet 4.5. The context picture is effectively a tie. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.

If you need a single default, start with Claude Sonnet 4.5 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Choose Claude Sonnet 4.5 if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 128,000-token output limit.

Choose Qwen3-Max Max if

  • You prefer Alibaba Cloud's tooling or already use it.

FAQ

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than Qwen3-Max Max?

On the index average, Claude Sonnet 4.5 leads Qwen3-Max Max by 0.1 points (86.0 versus 85.9). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 6 benchmarks, Qwen3-Max Max wins 6.

Which is cheaper, Claude Sonnet 4.5 or Qwen3-Max Max?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $31.00 per million tokens, versus $32.41 for Qwen3-Max Max.

Which has the larger context window?

Both models list a 400,000-token context window.

Are these models open weights?

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is proprietary; Qwen3-Max Max is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with Claude Sonnet 4.5 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.

Related comparisons