- Score
- 8.6 (+1.89 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.061 · 32.1% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 7.51s · 71.7% faster
Summary
Qwen3.5-Flash scores 6.7 on AI BENCHY and ranks #189. It has 10.0 reliability, a 37.7% pass rate, $0.089 total cost, and 26.52s average response time.
What makes Qwen3.5-Flash unique: It stands out most in Domain specific, where it ranks #3, while Anti-AI Tricks is its weakest area at #17.
Recommended alternatives
We recommend choosing one of these models instead:
- Score
- 8.3 (+1.58 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.047 · 47.3% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 18.07s · 31.9% faster
- Score
- 6.8 (+0.12 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.039 · 56.8% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 6.66s · 74.9% 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.
6.7
Consistency
9.3
10.0
$0.089
Total Output Tokens
219,122
Total Input Tokens
463,872
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
2
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.
#189 Qwen3.5-Flash
none- Cost
- $0.003
- Time
- 47.4s
- Tokens
- 7,799 tok
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 00:56 Re-test | 6.7 | 10.0 | $0.089 | Current run | |
| 2026-07-16 22:07 New test added | 6.1 | 10.0 | $0.073 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:25 New test added | 5.8 | 10.0 | $0.005 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:55 Suite changed | 5.9 | 10.0 | $0.006 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-11 01:19 First recorded run | 6.2 | N/A | $0.006 | 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 00:56 · Current run | 69/69 attempts | 6.7 | 9.3 | 10.0 | 8/23 | 2 | 219,122 | 463,872 | $0.089 | 26.52s |
| 2026-06-04 13:25 · New test added | 63/63 attempts | 5.8 | 9.7 | 10.0 | 8/21 | 1 | 4,276 | 46,439 | $0.005 | 3.58s |
| Difference | — | +0.9 | -0.4 | 0.0 | 0 | +1 | +214846 | +417433 | +$0.085 | +22935ms |
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 | 3.5 | 8.3 | |
| Coding | 5.5 | 10.0 | |
| Combined | 2.9 | 5.8 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 10.0 | |
| General Intelligence | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Instructions following | 6.3 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 3.1 | 10.0 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |