Claude Sonnet 5 vs Hy Image 3.5 Preview: which should you choose in 2026?
Claude Sonnet 5 (by Anthropic) and Hy Image 3.5 Preview (by Tencent) are compared below. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price, and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Choose Claude Sonnet 5 if…
- • you need a model with explicit reasoning support
Choose Hy Image 3.5 Preview if…
- • you need image generation
The benchmark count includes only results measured with a matching benchmark version and protocol. Arena scores are shown separately. Missing, preliminary, and incompatible data is not treated as a controlled win. Published point-score comparisons are labeled separately when protocol details are incomplete. For text-output models, the verdict also compares token pricing and context windows.
Performance benchmarks
Every value links to its source. A dash means that no reviewed result is available for that exact model and protocol.
| Benchmark | Claude Sonnet 5 | Hy Image 3.5 Preview |
|---|---|---|
A 657-task benchmark of multi-step work across simulated SaaS applications in six business domains. The Artificial Analysis protocol reports a guardrail-aware score and is distinct from both the public Zapier split and the unrelated dynamic AutoBench framework. Guardrail-aware score | 39.2% Artificial Analysis | — |
A benchmark of difficult, verifiable information-seeking questions designed to measure an agent's ability to locate hard-to-find facts through web browsing. Accuracy | — | — |
A verified computer-use benchmark in which multimodal agents operate desktop applications and are graded from the resulting environment state. Mean task reward | — | — |
A long-horizon software-engineering benchmark with 113 original tasks graded by hand-written tests. Pass@1 | 54.0%±4.0 DataCurve | — |
A human-validated subset of real GitHub issues used to measure whether a coding agent can produce repository patches that resolve the associated tests. Resolved | — | — |
Version 2.1 of the benchmark for completing realistic tasks in terminal environments. Harness, resource limits, and attempt count are part of the protocol. Mean task success | 74.6%±1.6 Terminal-Bench | — |
A dynamic LLM evaluation framework in which models generate questions, answer them, and participate in reciprocal peer assessment. AutoBench is distinct from Zapier's AutomationBench. Weighted peer-assessment score | — | — |
The highest-quality subset of Graduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A, designed to test expert-level scientific reasoning in biology, physics, and chemistry. Accuracy | 91.1% Artificial Analysis | — |
A 2,500-question expert-level benchmark spanning dozens of academic fields. Tool-assisted and no-tools results are separate protocols and must not be merged. Accuracy | 41.3% Artificial Analysis | — |
A contamination-resistant benchmark refreshed on a fixed release cadence. Scores from different LiveBench releases must never be compared as the same protocol. Mean of category averages | 76.0% LiveBench | — |
Benchmark sources
- AutomationBench-AA: Agentic SaaS Workflow Benchmark
- DeepSWE 1.1 Leaderboard
- terminal-bench@2.1 Leaderboard
- GPQA Diamond Benchmark Leaderboard
- Humanity's Last Exam Benchmark Leaderboard
- LiveBench 2026-06-25 Leaderboard
Reviewed evidence last updated 2026-08-09.
Pricing, capabilities, and model facts
| Feature | Claude Sonnet 5 | Hy Image 3.5 Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Context & model facts | ||
| Developer | Anthropic | Tencent |
| API provider | Anthropic | Tencent |
| Input context | 1,000,000 tokens | 100,000 tokens |
| Maximum output | 128,000 tokens | 90,000 tokens |
| Released | — | — |
| Added to Writingmate | Jun 30, 2026 | Oct 5, 2026 |
| License | Not available | Not available |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
| Capabilities | ||
| Inputs | Text, Image, File | Text, Image |
| Outputs | Text | Image |
| Provider endpoint accepts tool parameters | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Image Generation | No | Yes |
| Video Generation | No | No |
| API performance | ||
| p95 latency | Not measured | Not measured |
| Output throughput | Not measured | Not measured |
| Writingmate shows API performance only when both models have enough observations from the same measurement window, prompt profile, and provider. Third-party latency values are not copied into this table. | ||
Data sources
- Writingmate model catalog (pricing, limits, and availability)
Catalog data last updated Oct 5, 2026.
Why Pay for Multiple Subscriptions?
Comparing Claude Sonnet 5 from Anthropic with Hy Image 3.5 Preview from Tencent? Instead of managing separate API keys and subscriptions, get both with Writingmate.
| Plan | Price | Claude Sonnet 5 | Hy Image 3.5 Preview | AI Images | AI Video |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Writingmate Pro Most popular | $20/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Writingmate Ultimate Power users | $60/mo | Included | Included | Nano Banana Pro, FLUX.2, DALL-E & more | VEO 3.1, Kling 3.0 |
Claude Sonnet 5 vs Hy Image 3.5 Preview FAQ
Which is better, Claude Sonnet 5 or Hy Image 3.5 Preview?
There are not enough shared, protocol-compatible benchmark results to declare a performance leader.
Which model is cheaper to use through an API?
A comparable blended token price is not available for both models. Check the API pricing rows for the values that are currently published.
Which model supports more context?
Comparable context-window data is not available for both models.
Can I switch between Claude Sonnet 5 and Hy Image 3.5 Preview?
Yes. Use the model selector on this page to open any current Writingmate model comparison. You can also run the same prompt with both models in Writingmate.
Related comparisons
More Claude Sonnet 5 comparisons
Muse Spark Open
Meta
Muse Spark Open is a coding-optimized open-weight model.
Gemini 4 Argon
Gemini 4 Argon is Google's flagship reasoning model, built for complex software engineering, deep mathematical and scientific problem solving, and autonomous multi-step agents.
Muse Wonder
Meta
Muse Wonder is a frontier reasoning model from Meta, designed for complex personal and professional agentic tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol Pro is the same underlying model as GPT-6.1 Sol, served with reasoning.mode set to pro for higher-quality responses on complex tasks.
GPT-6.1 Sol
OpenAI
GPT-6.1 Sol is an upgrade to GPT-6 Sol from OpenAI, positioned below the flagship GPT-6 Astra in the GPT-6 series.
Jev Router
Typesafe
Jev Router picks the best model and reasoning effort for each request, balancing quality, speed, and cost.
More Hy Image 3.5 Preview comparisons
Qwen Image 2.1 Turbo
Qwen
Qwen Image 2.1 Turbo is a model by Qwen.
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro
Qwen
Qwen Image 2.1 Pro is an image generation and editing model from Qwen, the higher-quality tier of the Qwen Image 2.1 series.
K3 Edit
Krea
Krea K3 Edit is an image-to-image editing model from Krea.
FLUX 3 Image Klein
Black Forest Labs
FLUX 3 Image Klein is an open-weights image generation and editing model from Black Forest Labs.
Seedream 5.0 Flash
ByteDance
Seedream 5.0 Flash is an image generation and editing model from ByteDance Seed.
FLUX 3 Image
Black Forest Labs
FLUX.3 Image is Black Forest Labs' flagship image generation and editing model.