Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash costs 5.8x less per output token than GPT-3.5 Turbo ($0.26 vs $1.50 per million). Updated October 23, 2026; 4 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-3.5 TurboOpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$1.50
0
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
41.1
Overall
50.1
Output $/M
$0.26
4
vs boards won of 4 shared

GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-3.5 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Shared results
4
GPT-3.5 Turbo only
9
Qwen3.5-Flash only
51
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

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
GPT-3.5 Turbo not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 52.3 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
GPQA Diamond: GPT-3.5 Turbo 30.6% against Qwen3.5-Flash 82.8%, 52.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-3.5 Turbo $1.50 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 5.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-3.5 Turbo takes 16K tokens, Qwen3.5-Flash 1M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-3.5 TurboBarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Reasoning01
Knowledge01
General02
All shared boards04
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
AA Coding Index10.7Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)Not measured83.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured64.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
ALE-BenchNot measured265.9Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1412Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1416Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1229Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1291Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SciCode0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Neither model has a result on the other 33 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index5.5Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured143.5Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 42 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond30.6%82.8%Qwen3.5-Flash
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)29.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured82.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured14.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
BIG-Bench Hard61.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1403Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1409Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIMENot measured92.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured84.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured18.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
GSM8K57.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.1%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)64.4%84.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured56.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured63.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured72.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured67.4%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedQA (Vals AI)58.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)46.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MMLU68.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-3.5 Turbo measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1415Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1397Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1394Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured42.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured70.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
DTBench48.5%82.9%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMCA9.7%29.1%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena TextNot measured1397Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1375Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1343Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1404Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1385Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1446Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1391Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1369Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1344Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1380Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1376Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1393Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1392Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1369Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1347Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 27 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 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

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.0013Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.029Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-3.5 Turbo$0.115Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash 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 GPT-3.5 Turbo and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-3.5 TurboQwen3.5-Flash
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMay 28, 2023February 25, 2026
Context window16K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.50$0.065
Output $/Mtok$1.50$0.26
Coding indexNot benchmarked41.1
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-3.5 Turbo better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; GPT-3.5 Turbo has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.

Which is cheaper, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen3.5-Flash?

GPT-3.5 Turbo costs $0.50 per million input tokens and $1.50 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.5-Flash only.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-3.5 Turbo or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 16K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-3.5 Turbo vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 23, 2026. GPT-3.5 Turbo's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next