Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
vs. R1 1776
Comparing 2 AI models · 8 benchmarks · Alibaba, Perplexity
Recommended Pick
PeR1 17765 metric winsStrongest on: Input price, Output price, TTFT
Lowest Price
R1 1776
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
R1 1776
50.8 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
43.3 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
R1 1776 is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
R1 1776 leads Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) by 9.1 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
R1 1776 wins 5 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.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
R1 1776
Perplexity
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 Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) | Top Pick Pe R1 1776 |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.40/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $3.20/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.10/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Perplexity |
| Release Date | Feb 24, 2026 | Feb 18, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 164.9 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1049ms | — |
| Latency | 1049ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 41.7 | 50.8 |
| Intelligence | 27.6 | 6.3 |
| Coding | 43.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 82.7% | — |
| HLE | 14.8% | — |
| MATH 500 | — | 95.4% |
| SciCode | 35.6% | — |
| LCR | 56.0% | — |
| IFBench | 50.8% | — |
| TAU-bench v2 | 84.5% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 29.5% | — |
Key Takeaways
R1 1776 offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
R1 1776 has the strongest reasoning profile with a 50.8 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 43.3 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 (Non-reasoning)
- Code generation
- Software development
R1 1776
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
