Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Ember-1 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 15.0x less per output token than Ember-1 ($1.00 vs $15.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.

Ember-1Fireworks
Coding
52.6
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$15.00
Qwen3.6 35B A3BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
45.0
Output $/M
$1.00
vs $15.00 vs $1.00 per 1M output tokens. Qwen3.6 35B A3B is 15.0x cheaper.

Ember-1 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B: which to pick

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 15.0x cheaper ($1.00 vs $15.00 per million).

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Qwen3.6 35B A3B on AA Coding Index, SciCode and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Ember-1 52.6 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked.
Widest category
None yet: no category has been tested on both models.
Widest single gap
None yet: no benchmark has tested both models.
Output price
Ember-1 $15.00 against Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 per million output tokens, 15.0x apart.
Context window
Ember-1 takes 1.05M tokens, Qwen3.6 35B A3B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

Every board either model has a result on, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale. Only one model is measured on each, so no row names a leader.

CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10 boards measured
Coding benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured41.9Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)20.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)83.9%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Code migration (Vals AI)32.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IOI (Vals AI)46.3%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)69.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
SciCodeNot measured36.6%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured34.8%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Terminal-BenchNot measured24.6%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
WeirdMLNot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Intelligence benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Intelligence IndexNot measured18.2Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured143.7Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index9 boards measured
Agentic work benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured13.1Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)51.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)31.1%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)44.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)63.4%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)67.0%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)5.7%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
Vals Science Index31.8%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured95.3%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards measured
Reasoning benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)22.5%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured84.1%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured22.2%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured84.8%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured22.0%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
Math benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured86.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured20.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
General benchmarks for Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
BenchmarkEmber-1Qwen3.6 35B A3BLeader
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)66.2%Not measuredOnly Ember-1 measured
IFBenchNot measured64.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured71.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
DTBenchNot measured73.9%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
LMCANot measured29.7%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Surface Evolver BenchNot measured44.4%Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Ember-1$0.011Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0006Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Ember-1$0.195Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.0080Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Ember-1$0.750Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 35B A3B$0.030Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B
SpecificationFireworks Ember-1Qwen3.6 35B A3B
MakerFireworksQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 24, 2026April 27, 2026
Context window1.05M262K
Input $/Mtok$3.00$0.10
Output $/Mtok$15.00$1.00
Coding index52.6Not benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it20
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Ember-1 better than Qwen3.6 35B A3B for coding?

Only Ember-1 has a coding score, 52.6 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.6 35B A3B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for output tokens 15.0x cheaper ($1.00 vs $15.00 per million).

Which is cheaper, Ember-1 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Ember-1 costs $3.00 per million input tokens and $15.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 and $1.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Ember-1 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

Ember-1, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.

Has any benchmark tested both Ember-1 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B?

No benchmark has tested both yet. Ember-1 has results on Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI), Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) and Code migration (Vals AI); Qwen3.6 35B A3B on AA Coding Index, SciCode and Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 22, 2026.

Compare next