Sonar vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads Sonar on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.2 to 7.7, at about the same output price ($1.00 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
Sonar or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Sonar for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- Sonar only
- 2
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
- 17
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads, 18.2 against 7.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B has a AA Agentic Index result, 13.1.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B takes 262K tokens against 127K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Sonar $0.0015, Qwen3.6 35B A3B $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Sonar not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 27.1 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Sonar 47.1% against Qwen3.6 35B A3B 84.1%, 37.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Both cost $1.00 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Sonar takes 127K tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 262K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | Sonar | Bars | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 41.9 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 29.5% | Not measured | Only Sonar measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 36.6% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 34.8% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Terminal-Bench | Not measured | 24.6% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| WeirdML | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.7 | 18.2 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 143.7 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 13.1 | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 95.3% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 47.1% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.9% | 22.2% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 84.8% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 22.0% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 20.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 68.9% | Not measured | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | Not measured | 64.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 71.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 73.9% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 29.7% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | Not measured | 44.4% | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | Perplexity Sonar | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Perplexity | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | January 27, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 127K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.10 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.00 | $1.00 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Sonar better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Sonar for work measured by AA Intelligence Index or GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Sonar or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Sonar costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $1.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Sonar or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 262K tokens against 127K.
How many benchmarks is the Sonar vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Sonar's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 35B A3B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.