Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
Celeris logo
Model A
Celeris-1

Celeris

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Alibaba

54.86/100

Supported · Public rank #108

90% interval 45.164.6

Decision reading

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.

2 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Celeris-1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Celeris-1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
2
Celeris-1 only
2
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
14
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
46.0
Estimated · #89/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 4 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
30.2
Supported · #168/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 2 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Celeris-1
47.8
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
40.0
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
46.1
Supported · #110/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 3 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
21.1
#11/12
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
67.1
Unranked · 3 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Celeris-1
Not ranked
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
88.5
#29/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Celeris-1
$0.00055
Does not fit in one request
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Celeris-1
$0.0121
Does not fit in one request
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Celeris-1
$0.051
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Celeris-1 does not fit this workload in one request. Celeris-1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Celeris-1

131,072 tokens

Celeris-1 model guide

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

262K

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Celeris-1

Not published

Celeris API pricing

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

No comparable hosted API rate

Provider availability

Celeris-1

Generally Available · Celeris OpenAI-compatible API (United States)

Celeris availability

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Celeris-1

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Reasoning

Weight access

Celeris-1

Proprietary

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

License

Celeris-1

Proprietary

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

Open Weight

Release date

Celeris-1

2026-07-22

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

2026-03-04

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the larger documented window (262K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence18 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B40.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • BrowseComp

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B61%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • OSWorld-Verified

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B54.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B28.96%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B69.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-Rebench

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B53.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • DROP

    Celeris-181.4%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

    Not directly comparable

  • LongBench v2

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B59%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Celeris-175.9%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B85.3%
    Source

    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads this result

  • SuperGPQA

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B63.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B84.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • GSM8K

    Celeris-193.7%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

    Not directly comparable

Multilingual

  • MMLU-ProX

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMVU

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B72.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MathVision

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B83.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Celeris-1
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B92.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    Celeris-180.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9%
    Source

    Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Celeris-1 is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Celeris-1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Celeris-1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 131,072 tokens.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.