Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Qwen3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
47.65/100
Margin
3.8pts
winning →
51.47/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.5 Flash and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to Qwen3.5 Flash; 57 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
0
Qwen3.5 Flash only
2
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
57
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Flash only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 51.47 to 47.65. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 88.2 against 4.7.

Qwen3.5 Flash gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.5 FlashNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.5 FlashNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.5 Flash1MQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.5 Flash lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource —21.4%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —42.65%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —73.4%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —67.2%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —49.5%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —80.4%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —29.4%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource —41.9%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource —35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource —63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource —85.2%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —64.7%Not comparable
C-EvalSource —90%Not comparable
GPQASource —86%Not comparable
HLESource —21.4%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —31.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —20.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-21.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —18.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —49.7%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 6.207%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source —90.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source —89.1%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —83.6%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource —78.9%Not comparable
AIME26Source —92.7%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMUSource —81.7%Not comparable
MMMU-ProSource —75.3%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —85.3%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
CharXivSource —78%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —58.9%Not comparable
CC-OCRSource —81.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source —92.0%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —86.6%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —83.7%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —86.2%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource —64.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 51.47 to 47.65.

Which is better for math, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 4.7. Qwen3.5 Flash stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Alibaba Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.