Head-to-head comparison across 1benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Grok Code Fast 1
40
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
56
Verified leaderboard positions: Grok Code Fast 1 unranked · Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #18
Pick Qwen3.5-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Coding
+12.4 difference
Grok Code Fast 1
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
$0.2 / $1.5
$0 / $0
172 t/s
N/A
2.81s
N/A
256K
262K
Pick Qwen3.5-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 56 to 40. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 56 to 40. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 69.2%.
Grok Code Fast 1 has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.8 versus 58.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.