Skip to main content
Radar

Every change to the models you run, with its source and its date. Releases, price changes, retirements, API changes, and incidents.Every change to the models you run, with its source.

Follow model changes
BenchLM

Ichigo vs Qwen3.5 Flash

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

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

Model A
Ichigo

Jan

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.5 Flash

Alibaba

56.19/100

Supported · Public rank #89

90% interval 46.4–66.0

Updated September 18, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

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.

No workload recommendation clears the current evidence threshold.

Use the matched evidence, workload costs, and sourced specifications below instead of treating a point score as a universal answer.

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Ichigo 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

    Ichigo and Qwen3.5 Flash are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete context comparison is not sourced.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

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

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

—Ichigo46.8Qwen3.5 Flash

Not comparable · BenchAlign

The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboardShortlist models for this job

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
0
Ichigo only
0
Qwen3.5 Flash only
2
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
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
46.8
Estimated · #82/154
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
28.4
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Ichigo
Not ranked
Qwen3.5 Flash
Not ranked
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.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

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

Ichigo
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.0003
Fits in one request

Ichigo has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Ichigo
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.0062
Fits in one request

Ichigo has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

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

Ichigo
API rate not published
Fit state unavailable
Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.5 Flash
$0.026
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

Qwen3.5 Flash has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Ichigo 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.

Ichigo

N/A

Qwen3.5 Flash

1M

API model ID

Ichigo

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

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

Ichigo

No comparable hosted API rate

Jan model documentation

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not published

Documented inputs

Ichigo

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Ichigo

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Provider availability

Ichigo

Not sourced

Qwen3.5 Flash

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Ichigo

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.5 Flash

Reasoning

Weight access

Ichigo

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

License

Ichigo

Open Weight

Qwen3.5 Flash

Proprietary

Release date

Ichigo

2024-10-20

Qwen3.5 Flash

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
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
A complete documented context comparison is not available.

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 evidence2 rows

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Ichigo—
    Qwen3.5 Flash6.207%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Ichigo—
    Qwen3.5 Flash0.000%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Questions

Which is better, Ichigo or Qwen3.5 Flash?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Ichigo or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Ichigo is not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Ichigo or Qwen3.5 Flash?

Ichigo and Qwen3.5 Flash are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Ichigo or Qwen3.5 Flash?

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, Ichigo or Qwen3.5 Flash?

A complete documented context-window comparison is not available.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated September 18, 2026

Watch Ichigo vs Qwen3.5 Flash

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

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.