Noometry

Model comparison

Claude Sonnet 5 vs Qwen1.5-72B

Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Claude Sonnet 5 Anthropic

54.6

Rank #29 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Claude Sonnet 5 leads 55.6 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 90.5% for Claude Sonnet 5 and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Claude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
ProviderAnthropicAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index54.630.8
Released2026-06-292024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output128K—
Input $ / M tokens$2—
Output $ / M tokens$10—
Results tracked5122

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 55.5 (#26), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding14831165
DeepSWE53.8%—
FrontierCode42.7%—
CursorBench34.1%—
LMArena WebDev1541—
SciCode54.3%—
GSO37.3%—
WeirdML68.8%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
ALE-Bench1,463—
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 42.8 (#18), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
APEX-Agents54.5%—
GBAEval65.3%—
LMArena Search1194—
Vending-Bench 26,378—

Reasoning Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 49.1 (#39), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts14611148
SimpleBench60.6%—
NYT Connections (extended)75.1%—
CritPt16.9%—
Chess Puzzles35%—
Mystery Game Puzzles35%—
DTBench92.5%—
LMCA50%—
Surface Evolver Bench60%—
Bench to the Future 30.14—
Epoch Capabilities Index156.21—
ForecastBench61.1—

Math Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 66.2 (#27), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math14671164
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)65.6%—
FrontierMath Tier 429.3%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202594.7%—
ProofBench77%—

Knowledge Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 55.6 (#47), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond90.5%28.8%
LMArena Expert14901136
SimpleQA Verified33.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Claude Sonnet 5: 42.4 (#31), Qwen1.5-72B: —

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1274—
Blueprint-Bench 224.9%—
LMArena Document1466—

Multilingual Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 53.8 (#55), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English14311135
LMArena Chinese14771186
LMArena French14601159
LMArena German14401084
LMArena Japanese14221061
LMArena Korean14111050
LMArena Russian14511104
LMArena Spanish14371110

Instruction Following Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 76.3 (#41), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following14521141

Long Context Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 44.8 (#55), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query14631157

Writing & Preference Claude Sonnet 5 leads

Claude Sonnet 5: 69.2 (#25), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

BenchmarkClaude Sonnet 5Qwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text14421166
LMArena Creative Writing14161137
LMArena Multi-Turn14541160
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1794—
EQ-Bench 41236—

Frequently asked questions

Is Claude Sonnet 5 better than Qwen1.5-72B?

Claude Sonnet 5 is the stronger model overall, scoring 54.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Claude Sonnet 5 or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

Claude Sonnet 5 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 55.5 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Claude Sonnet 5 and Qwen1.5-72B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude Sonnet 5 has 51 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper