Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.8 Flash Next
Qwen3.8 Flash Next comes out ahead, 70 to 59 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
DeepReinforce
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B
59/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $1.70
- Context262K
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.8 Flash Next
70/100- ECI—
- Price$0.20 / $0.50
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is our pick
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (59). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen3.8 Flash NextQwen3.8 Flash Next $0.275 · Ornith 1.5 35B A3B $0.575 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameOrnith 1.5 35B A3B 262,144 · Qwen3.8 Flash Next 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.8 Flash NextOrnith 1.5 35B A3B: Text, Images · Qwen3.8 Flash Next: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Ornith 1.5 35B A3B | Qwen3.8 Flash Next |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 61 | 76 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 70 | 80 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 59/100 | 70/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Ornith 1.5 35B A3BDeepReinforce | Qwen3.8 Flash NextAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | — | — |
| ECI rank | — | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.20 | $0.20 |
| Output | $1.70 | $0.50 (best) |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.575 | $0.275 (best) |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 2 providers | Median of 5 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | — | 131,072 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | No | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | OpenMIT | Openqwen-community-1.0 |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 2 | 5 (best) |
| Released | Aug 18, 2026 | Aug 27, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
What would a month cost?
Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B$5.40
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next$3.00
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Ornith 1.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the better all-round choice, scoring 70/100 against Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (59). It leads on price and inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Ornith 1.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 Flash Next?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is cheaper at $0.20 input / $0.50 output per million tokens (median across 5 API providers). Ornith 1.5 35B A3B costs $0.20 input / $1.70 output per million tokens (median across 2 API providers). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.275 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 Flash Next versus $0.575 for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B (2.1× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B has not been scored yet and Qwen3.8 Flash Next has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Ornith 1.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.8 Flash Next yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.8 Flash Next share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 Flash Next up to 131,072 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Ornith 1.5 35B A3B accepts text and images; Qwen3.8 Flash Next accepts text, images and video. Qwen3.8 Flash Next handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights (MIT and qwen-community-1.0), so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.8 Flash Next is the newest, released Aug 27, 2026. Ornith 1.5 35B A3B came out Aug 18, 2026.
How do you decide the winner?
Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.
Related comparisons
- Add Muse Glimmer 30BThree-way comparison
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Muse Glimmer 30BMeta
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Solar Pro 4Upstage
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs MiMo-V2.6-ProXiaomi
- Ornith 1.5 35B A3B vs Gemini 3.1 Flash LiteGoogle
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs MiniCPM5-2BOpenBMB
- Qwen3.8 Flash Next vs DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision ExpDeepSeek
