Model Comparison
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
12.8 reasoning / $0.02/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
$0.01/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)
22.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
1.0 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) is 11x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) by 9.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) by 0.1 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Output price, Blended price.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.11/1M | $0.01/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.26/1M | $0.05/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.40/1M | $0.02/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 98.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 249ms |
| Latency | — | 249ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 8.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 22.4 | 12.8 |
| Intelligence | 6.5 | 9.9 |
| Coding | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| Math | 18.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 23.9% | 23.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 34.7% | — |
| HLE | 5.7% | 4.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 12.1% | — |
| MATH 500 | 75.0% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 18.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 10.0% | — |
| SciCode | 2.8% | 2.9% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| IFBench | 23.3% | 21.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 21.1% | 65.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.01/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 22.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 1.0 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 0.6B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
