Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

The average score is effectively tied at 5.9 vs 6.0. Qwen3.5-Flash has the lower benchmark cost at $0.073 vs $0.142. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is faster at 12.73s vs 25.28s, with pass rates of 39.4% vs 34.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-26

Rank
#190
Total Output Tokens
86,616
Response Time (avg)
12.73s
Total Cost
$0.142
Rank
#189
Total Output Tokens
209,201
Response Time (avg)
25.28s
Total Cost
$0.073
Recommended model Qwen3.5-Flash

It has the best score here (6.0), while costing about 2.0x less than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.5-35B-A3B Qwen3.5-35B-A3B none Release: 2026-02-24 Qwen3.5-Flash Qwen3.5-Flash none Release: 2026-02-24
Score 5.9 6.0
Rank #190 #189
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 8.6 9.3
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 39.4% 34.9%
Flaky tests 4 2
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.841 1.066
Total Cost $0.142 $0.073
Input Price $0.250 / 1M $0.065 / 1M
Output Price $1.250 / 1M $0.260 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 134,530 282,356
Output Tokens 86,616 209,201
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 12.73s 25.28s
Response Time (max) 209.15s 480.96s
Response Time (total) 279.97s 556.14s
Parameters 35B total (3B active) ~35B total (~3B active)
Availability Open source Closed

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#190 Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

none
Cost
$0.005
Time
28.4s
Tokens
4,518 tok

#189 Qwen3.5-Flash

none
Cost
$0.003
Time
47.4s
Tokens
7,799 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.39s 7,808 571 0
Qwen3.5-Flash 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 850ms 7,913 519 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair