Head-to-head · frontier vs frontier

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

We compared Claude Sonnet 4.5 and Qwen3-Max Pro on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. Qwen3-Max Pro 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 Pro

Qwen3-Max Pro is a frontier model from Alibaba Cloud. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $18.87 per million input tokens and $84.39 per million output tokens, and averages 86.2 across the index's benchmark suite.

Input
$18.87 / 1M
Output
$84.39 / 1M
Context
400,000
Avg score
86.2
Open weights
No
Full Qwen3-Max Pro page

Specification comparison

SpecClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3-Max ProEdge
Input price / 1M$17.84$18.87A
Output price / 1M$70.50$84.39A
Context window400,000400,000Tie
Max output128,0008,192A
Average score86.086.2B
Arena Elo1478.21466.4A
Open weightsNoNoTie

Benchmark comparison

Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 7, Qwen3-Max Pro wins 5, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 4.5Qwen3-Max ProGapWinner
MMLU-Pro88.088.70.7Qwen3-Max Pro
GPQA Diamond82.680.02.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
SWE-bench Verified74.275.61.4Qwen3-Max Pro
HumanEval92.792.10.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
MATH-50087.091.84.8Qwen3-Max Pro
AIME 202586.385.40.9Claude Sonnet 4.5
LiveCodeBench82.581.01.5Claude Sonnet 4.5
IFEval91.193.22.1Qwen3-Max Pro
TruthfulQA87.288.61.4Qwen3-Max Pro
HellaSwag93.092.40.6Claude Sonnet 4.5
MMMU80.979.51.4Claude Sonnet 4.5
Arena Elo1478.21466.411.8Claude 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 Pro costs about $35.25. Claude Sonnet 4.5 is roughly 12% cheaper than Qwen3-Max Pro. 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 7, Qwen3-Max Pro wins 5, and 0 are tied. On the index average, Qwen3-Max Pro leads Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 0.2 points (86.2 versus 86.0).

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 Qwen3-Max Pro for quality-sensitive work and Claude Sonnet 4.5 for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Choose Claude Sonnet 4.5 if

  • Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
  • You need the larger 128,000-token output limit.

Choose Qwen3-Max Pro if

  • You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.

FAQ

Is Claude Sonnet 4.5 better than Qwen3-Max Pro?

On the index average, Qwen3-Max Pro leads Claude Sonnet 4.5 by 0.2 points (86.2 versus 86.0). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. Claude Sonnet 4.5 wins 7 benchmarks, Qwen3-Max Pro wins 5.

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

Claude Sonnet 4.5 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $31.00 per million tokens, versus $35.25 for Qwen3-Max Pro.

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 Pro is proprietary.

Which should I choose for production?

If you need a single default, start with Qwen3-Max Pro for quality-sensitive work and Claude Sonnet 4.5 for high-volume, well-scoped tasks. Run both on a sample of your own traffic before locking in a choice.

Related comparisons