#36 Qwen3.5-Flash
medium- Cost
- $0.002
- Time
- 25.8s
- Tokens
- 4,294 tok
Qwen
Release: 2026-02-24
Tested on: 2026-04-11 01:44
qwen/qwen3.5-flash-02-23::medium
~35B total (~3B active)MoEClosedEstimated
(medium)
(none)
Summary
Qwen3.5-Flash scores 7.8 on AI BENCHY and ranks #36. It has N/A reliability, a 81.5% pass rate, $0.080 total cost, and 66.72s average response time.
What makes Qwen3.5-Flash unique: Its total benchmark cost is unusually low for its score range.
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.
7.8
Consistency
7.3
N/A
$0.080
Total Output Tokens
193,972
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.065 / 1M
Output Price
$0.260 / 1M
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.
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-14 01:52 Re-test | 6.1 | 10.0 | $0.142 ↓ | Compare | |
| 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 | Current run |
Run comparison
| Run | Benchmark coverage | Score | Consistency | Reliability | Tests Correct | Flaky tests | Total Output Tokens | Total Input Tokens | Total Cost | Response Time (avg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-11 01:44 · First recorded run | 54/54 attempts | 7.8 | 7.3 | N/A | 11/18 | 6 | 193,972 | 0 | $0.080 | 66.72s |
| 2026-08-14 01:52 · Re-test | 66/66 attempts | 6.1 | 7.8 | 10.0 | 11/22 | 6 | 512,846 | 118,508 | $0.142 | 84.44s |
| Difference | — | +1.7 | -0.5 | 0 | 0 | -318874 | -118508 | -$0.063 | -17714ms |
Benchmark coverage differs: 54/54 attempts (Target: 3 repeats per test) versus 66/66 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
Qwen3.5-FlashmediumvsGemini 3.1 Flash LitenoneQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsInklinglowQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsQwen3.7 FlashnoneQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsTrinity Large ThinkingmediumQwen3.5-Flashmediumvsgpt-oss-120bmediumQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsQwen3.6 FlashnoneQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsQwen3.5-35B-A3BmediumQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsGemma 4 31BnoneFree AvailableQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsGemini 3.1 Flash LiteminimalQwen3.5-FlashmediumvsQwen3.5 Plus 2026-04-20none
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 4.7 | 1.6 | |
| Combined | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 7.3 | 5.9 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 7.2 | |
| General Intelligence | 6.1 | 3.1 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 6.4 | 4.4 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |