Model Comparison
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
38.0 reasoning / $0.40/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)
$0.11/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
50.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
34.7 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 1.7B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) is 3.6x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) by 12.2 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) by 33.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, Coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.11/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Output Cost | $1.26/1M | $3.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.40/1M | $1.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 132.4 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1202ms |
| Latency | — | 16305ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 47.7 |
| Reasoning Score | 38.0 | 50.2 |
| Intelligence | 8.0 | 41.6 |
| Coding | 1.4 | 34.7 |
| Math | 38.7 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 35.6% | 85.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 57.0% | — |
| HLE | 4.8% | 23.4% |
| LiveCodeBench | 30.8% | — |
| MATH 500 | 89.4% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 38.7% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 51.0% | — |
| SciCode | 4.3% | 42.0% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 66.7% |
| IFBench | 26.9% | 75.7% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 26.0% | 93.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.0% | 31.1% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 1.7B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.11/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 50.2 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) reaches a 34.7 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 1.7B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
