Model Comparison
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)11 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
26.6 reasoning / $0.66/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)
$0.18/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
35.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) is 3.9x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) generates about 2.0x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) by 8.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) wins 11 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 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.80/1M | $2.10/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.22/1M | $0.66/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 28, 2025 | Oct 14, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 66.5 tok/s | 135.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1146ms | 1082ms |
| Latency | 1146ms | 15820ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 71.4 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 35.3 | 26.6 |
| Intelligence | 10.9 | 10.6 |
| Math | 23.7 | 30.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 61.3% | 57.9% |
| MMLU Pro | 76.2% | 74.9% |
| HLE | 4.7% | 3.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | 34.3% | 35.3% |
| MATH 500 | 90.2% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 23.7% | 30.7% |
| AIME (Original) | 32.7% | — |
| SciCode | 29.9% | 21.9% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 31.0% |
| IFBench | 36.6% | 39.9% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 27.2% | 22.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 6.1% | 3.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.18/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 35.3 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3 235B A22B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3 VL 8B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
