Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.5 Flash
Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 Flash 75, Qwen3.5 9B 72). The right pick depends on what you value most.
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
72/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.5 Flash
75/100- ECI144.0
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1M
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Too close to call
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Qwen3.5 Flash 75/100, Qwen3.5 9B 72/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 Flash for raw capability and Qwen3.5 9B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.5 FlashCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0 · Qwen3.5 9B 139.5
- Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · Qwen3.5 Flash $0.175 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.5 9B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 9BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 9B | Qwen3.5 Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 65 | 71 |
| Price | 25% | 95 | 86 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 80 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 60 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 75/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.5 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.5 | 144.0 (best) |
| ECI rank | #101 of 148 | #82 of 148 (best) |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 79.0% | 82.3% (best) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | — | 18.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 61.7% | 84.4% (best) |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | — | 20.3% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 | $0.10 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $0.40 |
| Cached input | — | $0.01 |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.113 (best) | $0.175 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens (best) |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| API model ID | — | qwen3.5-flash |
| API providers | 15 (best) | 8 |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Feb 23, 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.
- Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
- Qwen3.5 Flash$1.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or Qwen3.5 Flash?
It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 3 points (Qwen3.5 Flash 75/100, Qwen3.5 9B 72/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 Flash for raw capability and Qwen3.5 9B on price. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 9B or Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Qwen3.5 Flash costs $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.175 for Qwen3.5 Flash (1.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.5 Flash scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 Flash 144.0 (#82 of 148) and Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148). Their confidence ranges do not overlap (141.6–145.5 vs 136.5–141.3), so the gap is a real one. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 Flash 82.3%, Qwen3.5 9B 79.0%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 Flash 84.4%, Qwen3.5 9B 61.7%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 9B and Qwen3.5 Flash yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 Flash leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 9B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.5 Flash accepts text, images and video. They handle the same number of input types.
Are any of these open source?
Qwen3.5 9B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Qwen3.5 Flash came out Feb 23, 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 GPT-5 NanoThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 9B vs GPT-5 NanoOpenAI · ECI 139.4
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle · ECI 141.9
- Qwen3.5 9B vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle · ECI 142.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
