Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
vs. QwQ 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)9 metric winsStrongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
35.0 reasoning / $0.06/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
$0.03/1M input price
Best Reasoning
QwQ 32B
44.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
22.6 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
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) is 22x cheaper on input tokens than QwQ 32B.
Speed gap
QwQ 32B generates about 1.3x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
QwQ 32B leads Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) by 9.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) wins 9 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.
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
QwQ 32B
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 | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) | Al QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.03/1M | $0.66/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.15/1M | $1.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.06/1M | $0.74/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Mar 2, 2026 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 25.3 tok/s | 32.7 tok/s |
| TTFT | 398ms | 473ms |
| Latency | 79571ms | 76591ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 10.3 |
| Reasoning Score | 35.0 | 44.7 |
| Intelligence | 20.1 | 13.4 |
| Coding | 22.6 | — |
| Math | — | 29.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 77.1% | 59.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 76.4% |
| HLE | 7.8% | 8.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 63.1% |
| MATH 500 | — | 95.7% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 29.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 78.0% |
| SciCode | 16.1% | 35.8% |
| LCR | 55.7% | 25.0% |
| IFBench | 52.0% | 38.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 92.1% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 18.2% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.03/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
QwQ 32B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 44.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 4B (Reasoning) reaches a 22.6 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 4B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
QwQ 32B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
