- Score
- 7.5 (+0.73 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.000 · 100.0% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 29.38s · 64.9% faster
Summary
Qwen3.5-Flash scores 6.8 on AI BENCHY and ranks #181. It has 10.0 reliability, a 66.7% pass rate, $0.184 total cost, and 83.68s average response time.
What makes Qwen3.5-Flash unique: It stands out most in Anti-AI Tricks, where it ranks #1, while Coding is its weakest area at #16.
Recommended alternatives
We recommend choosing one of these models instead:
- Score
- 9.4 (+2.55 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.183 · 0.9% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 6.24s · 92.5% faster
- Score
- 8.6 (+1.76 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.061 · 67.1% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 7.51s · 91.0% faster
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- ~35B total (~3B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Closed
- License
- -
Best estimate from public evidence; the vendor did not disclose every value. Estimate from the nearest released Qwen3.5 Flash-class checkpoint.
6.8
Consistency
7.9
10.0
$0.184
Total Output Tokens
531,668
Total Input Tokens
349,177
Input Price
$0.065 / 1M
Output Price
$0.260 / 1M
Cache Read Price
N/A
Cache Write Price
N/A
Cache prices apply to input tokens. Reads reuse cached prompts; writes store them and can cost extra. Output tokens use the output price.
Flaky tests
6
Flaky tests had mixed outcomes across runs (at least one pass and one fail).
Hamster playing table tennis
Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.
#181 Qwen3.5-Flash
medium- Cost
- $0.002
- Time
- 25.8s
- Tokens
- 4,294 tok
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 00:59 Re-test | 6.8 | 10.0 | $0.184 | Current run | |
| 2026-07-16 22:15 New test added | 6.2 | 10.0 | $0.139 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:36 New test added | 7.4 | 8.9 | $0.080 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:57 Suite changed | 7.4 | 8.3 | $0.104 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-11 01:44 First recorded run | 7.8 | N/A | $0.080 | Compare |
This run used a different benchmark suite. Keep suite changes in mind when reading historical movement.
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 00:59 · Current run | 69/69 attempts | 6.8 | 7.9 | 10.0 | 12/23 | 6 | 531,668 | 349,177 | $0.184 | 83.68s |
| 2026-06-04 13:36 · New test added | 63/63 attempts | 7.4 | 8.1 | 8.9 | 12/21 | 5 | 296,686 | 38,926 | $0.080 | 63.29s |
| Difference | — | -0.6 | -0.2 | +1.1 | 0 | +1 | +234982 | +310251 | +$0.105 | +20386ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 69/69 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 63/63 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test). Totals and repeat-sensitive metrics are not directly comparable.
These two runs used different benchmark suites, so the deltas reflect both model changes and suite changes.
Charts
Choose the first model, then click a second model to open a side-by-side page.
Top Models by Score
Score vs Total Cost
Response Time (avg)
Score vs Response Time (avg)
Total Output Tokens
Score vs Total Output Tokens
Quick Compare
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 3.7 | 7.2 | |
| Combined | 6.4 | 5.8 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 7.3 | 5.9 | |
| Domain specific | 2.9 | 7.2 | |
| General Intelligence | 6.1 | 3.1 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 8.2 | 7.2 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |