#25 Qwen3.6 Flash
medium
Invalid SVG
- Cost
- $0.008
- Time
- 29.9s
- Tokens
- 6,784 tok
Qwen
Release: 2026-04-20
Tested on: 2026-04-27 23:06
qwen/qwen3.6-flash::medium
~35B total (~3B active)MoEClosedEstimated
(medium)
(none)
Summary
Qwen3.6 Flash scores 8.1 on AI BENCHY and ranks #25. It has 10.0 reliability, a 79.6% pass rate, $0.174 total cost, and 9.90s average response time.
What makes Qwen3.6 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 released Flash-class architecture.
8.1
Consistency
8.2
10.0
$0.174
Total Output Tokens
110,014
Total Input Tokens
0
Input Price
$0.250 / 1M
Output Price
$1.500 / 1M
Flaky tests
4
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 01:43 Re-test | 6.8 | 10.0 | $0.741 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-07-16 21:53 New test added | 6.9 | 10.0 | $0.738 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-06-04 13:18 New test added | 7.5 | 10.0 | $0.288 ↓ | Compare | |
| 2026-05-21 23:53 Suite changed | 7.4 | 9.7 | $0.348 | Compare | |
| 2026-04-27 23:06 Initial run | 8.1 | 10.0 | $0.174 | 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) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-04-27 23:06 · Initial run | 54/54 attempts | 8.1 | 8.2 | 10.0 | 12/18 | 4 | 110,014 | 0 | $0.174 | 9.90s |
| 2026-07-16 21:53 · New test added | 66/66 attempts | 6.9 | 8.2 | 10.0 | 12/22 | 5 | 634,338 | 129,041 | $0.738 | 44.65s |
| Difference | — | +1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0 | -1 | -524324 | -129041 | -$0.565 | -34748ms |
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
Qwen3.6 FlashmediumvsGemini 3.5 FlashnoneQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsStep 3.7 FlashhighQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsSeed-2.0-CodehighQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsSeed-2.0-CodemediumQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsQwen3.7 FlashmediumQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsSolar Pro 4lowQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsClaude Fable 5.1lowQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsSolar Pro 4mediumQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsKAT-Coder-Pro V2.5mediumQwen3.6 FlashmediumvsDeepSeek V4 Pronone
Category Breakdown
| Category | Score | Consistency | Tests Correct |
|---|---|---|---|
| Anti-AI Tricks | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Coding | 6.7 | 3.5 | |
| Combined | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Data parsing and extraction | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Domain specific | 3.5 | 4.4 | |
| General Intelligence | 4.8 | 9.9 | |
| Instructions following | 10.0 | 10.0 | |
| Puzzle Solving | 8.2 | 7.2 | |
| Tool Calling | 10.0 | 10.0 |