- Score
- 9.4 (+2.14 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.183 · 67.8% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 6.24s · 93.6% faster
Summary
Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15 scores 7.2 on AI BENCHY and ranks #142. It has 10.0 reliability, a 72.5% pass rate, $0.567 total cost, and 97.68s average response time.
Recommended alternatives
We recommend choosing one of these models instead:
- Score
- 8.1 (+0.84 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.020 · 96.5% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 55.99s · 42.7% faster
- Score
- 7.5 (+0.32 points)
- Total Cost (Current Price)
- $0.000 · 100.0% cheaper
- Response Time (avg)
- 29.38s · 69.9% faster
Model facts
Researched on 2026-08-12
- Parameters
- ~397B total (~17B active)
- Architecture
- MoE
- Availability
- Closed
- License
- -
Best estimate from public evidence; the vendor did not disclose every value. Estimate from the released 397B/A17B family architecture.
7.2
Consistency
7.9
10.0
$0.567
Total Output Tokens
302,730
Total Input Tokens
249,486
Input Price
$0.260 / 1M
Output Price
$1.560 / 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.
#142 Qwen3.5 Plus 2026-02-15
medium- Cost
- $0.011
- Time
- 125.5s
- Tokens
- 7,040 tok
Run history
| Tested on | Score | Reliability | Tests Correct | Total Cost | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-01 00:30 Re-test | 7.2 | 10.0 | $0.567 | Current run | |
| 2026-07-16 21:32 New test added | 7.5 | 10.0 | $0.437 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:17 New test added | 7.9 | 8.9 | $0.310 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:53 Suite changed | 8.1 | 10.0 | $0.317 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-11 01:44 First recorded run | 8.5 | N/A | $0.220 | 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 00:30 · Current run | 69/69 attempts | 7.2 | 7.9 | 10.0 | 14/23 | 6 | 302,730 | 249,486 | $0.567 | 97.68s |
| 2026-06-04 13:17 · New test added | 63/63 attempts | 7.9 | 8.5 | 8.9 | 14/21 | 4 | 191,763 | 40,918 | $0.310 | 73.79s |
| Difference | — | -0.7 | -0.6 | +1.1 | 0 | +2 | +110967 | +208568 | +$0.257 | +23885ms |
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 | 6.1 | 3.1 | |
| Anti-AI Tricks | 8.2 | 7.9 | |
| Coding | 6.6 | 7.1 | |
| Combined | 6.9 | 5.9 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 5.3 | 7.2 | |
| General Intelligence | 4.7 | 1.6 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Trivia | 3.0 | 10.0 |