Qwen3.5 9B vs QwQ 32B
Qwen3.5 9B comes out ahead, 72 to 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
72/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
QwQ 32B
53/100- ECI137.6
- Price$0.66 / $1.00
- Context131K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.5 9B is our pick
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
- CapabilityQwen3.5 9BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 · QwQ 32B 137.6
- Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · QwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B 262,144 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · QwQ 32B: Text
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 9B | QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|---|
| CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI) | 50% | 65 | 62 |
| Price | 25% | 95 | 56 |
| Inputs & features | 15% | 80 | 35 |
| Context window | 10% | 37 | 24 |
| Overall | 100% | 72/100 | 53/100 |
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.5 (best) | 137.6 |
| ECI rank | #101 of 148 (best) | #109 of 148 |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 79.0% (best) | 65.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 61.7% (best) | 59.2% |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.66 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $1.00 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.113 (best) | $0.745 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Median of 1 providers |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens (best) | 131,072 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens (best) | 8,192 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | No |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | No |
| Video | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | No |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | — |
| API providers | 15 (best) | 1 |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | Apr 2024 |
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
- QwQ 32B$8.60
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or QwQ 32B?
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 9B or QwQ 32B?
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). QwQ 32B costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.745 for QwQ 32B (6.6× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
Qwen3.5 9B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (136.5–141.3 vs 133.1–141.7), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 9B 79.0%, QwQ 32B 65.3%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.5 9B 61.7%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 9B and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 9B 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 9B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; QwQ 32B accepts text. Qwen3.5 9B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024.
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
- QwQ 32B vs GPT-4.1 miniOpenAI · ECI 135.0
- QwQ 32B vs DeepSeek-R1DeepSeek · ECI 139.0
