Model Comparison
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) 11 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
39.9 reasoning / $0.37/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
$0.11/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
41.9 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
17.6 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 8B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) is 3.4x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.9x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 8B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) by 2.0 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) leads Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) by 8.6 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) | Al Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.38/1M | $0.11/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.25/1M | $1.15/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.84/1M | $0.37/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Apr 16, 2026 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 176.5 tok/s | 60.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1452ms | 1414ms |
| Latency | 1452ms | 34638ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 46.0 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 41.9 | 39.9 |
| Intelligence | 31.5 | 13.2 |
| Coding | 17.6 | 9.0 |
| Math | — | 19.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 81.7% | 58.9% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 74.3% |
| HLE | 12.5% | 4.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 40.6% |
| MATH 500 | — | 90.4% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 19.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 74.7% |
| SciCode | 1.3% | 22.6% |
| LCR | 56.7% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 36.2% | 33.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 85.1% | 27.8% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 25.8% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.11/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 41.9 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 17.6 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
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3 8B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
