Model Comparison
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning)8 metric winsStrongest on: Input price, Output price, TTFT
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
69.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning)
23.5 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) by 33.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) by 1.4 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) wins 8 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, TTFT, Latency.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-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 2507 (Reasoning) | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.70/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $8.40/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $2.63/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Jul 25, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 68.3 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1326ms | — |
| Latency | 30596ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 69.7 | 35.8 |
| Intelligence | 19.6 | 20.3 |
| Coding | 22.1 | 23.5 |
| Math | 91.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 79.0% | 78.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 84.3% | — |
| HLE | 15.0% | 8.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | 78.8% | — |
| MATH 500 | 98.4% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 91.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 94.0% | — |
| SciCode | 42.4% | 27.7% |
| LCR | 67.0% | 38.0% |
| IFBench | 51.2% | 37.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 53.2% | 85.1% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 13.6% | 18.2% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 69.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 23.5 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 235B A22B 2507 (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.5 9B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
