Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Output price
Best Value
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
33.8 reasoning / $0.06/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
$0.03/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
55.4 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
14.5 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 (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) is 23.3x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) generates about 1.4x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) by 21.6 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) by 0.8 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.03/1M | $0.70/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.15/1M | $8.40/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.06/1M | $2.63/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Mar 2, 2026 | Oct 21, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 141.0 tok/s | 97.8 tok/s |
| TTFT | 358ms | 1222ms |
| Latency | 358ms | 21666ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 3.7 |
| Reasoning Score | 33.8 | 55.4 |
| Intelligence | 22.6 | 24.7 |
| Coding | 13.7 | 14.5 |
| Math | — | 84.7 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 71.2% | 73.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 81.8% |
| HLE | 7.5% | 9.6% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 73.8% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 84.7% |
| SciCode | 18.3% | 28.5% |
| LCR | 28.3% | 55.3% |
| IFBench | 33.3% | 59.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 87.7% | 45.6% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 11.4% | 7.6% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.03/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 55.4 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning) reaches a 14.5 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
Qwen3.5 4B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3 VL 32B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
