Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
vs. QwQ 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) 10 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Throughput, Latency
Best Value
QwQ 32B
100.0 value score
44.7 reasoning / $0.74/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
$0.40/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
47.1 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
QwQ 32B has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) is 1.7x cheaper on input tokens than QwQ 32B.
Speed gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) generates about 4.5x as many tokens per second as QwQ 32B.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) leads QwQ 32B by 2.5 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Input price, Throughput, Latency, Reasoning.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
QwQ 32B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) | Al QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.66/1M |
| Output Cost | $3.20/1M | $1.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.10/1M | $0.74/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 24, 2026 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 145.8 tok/s | 32.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1015ms | 444ms |
| Latency | 14732ms | 77848ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 71.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 47.1 | 44.7 |
| Intelligence | 32.3 | 13.4 |
| Coding | 34.7 | — |
| Math | — | 29.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 85.7% | 59.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 76.4% |
| HLE | 23.4% | 8.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 63.1% |
| MATH 500 | — | 95.7% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 29.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 78.0% |
| SciCode | 42.0% | 35.8% |
| LCR | 66.7% | 25.0% |
| IFBench | 75.7% | 38.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 93.6% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.1% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.40/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 47.1 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
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
QwQ 32B
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
