Saba vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Saba costs 1.9x less per output token than Qwen3.6 Flash ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million). Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.60
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.125
Saba or Qwen3.6 Flash: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Saba for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million).
No benchmark has tested both yet. Saba has results on AA Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only Saba has a AA Intelligence Index result, 6.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 Flash takes 1M tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Saba
Saba $0.0005, Qwen3.6 Flash $0.0008 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Saba not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 Flash 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
- Saba $0.60 against Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 per million output tokens, 1.9x apart.
- Context window
- Saba takes 33K tokens, Qwen3.6 Flash 1M.
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 Index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 326.4 | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.5 | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 142.9 | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.4% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.3% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 83.3% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| SimpleBench | Not measured | 35.2% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | Not measured | 12.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 18.0% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 84.4% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 22.5% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 61.1% | Not measured | Only Saba measured |
| SimpleQA Verified | Not measured | 15.9% | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
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
Saba costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Saba costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Saba 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.
| Specification | Mistral Saba | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Mistral AI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | February 17, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 33K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.20 | $0.1875 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.60 | $1.125 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Saba better than Qwen3.6 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Saba for output tokens 1.9x cheaper ($0.60 vs $1.125 per million).
Which is cheaper, Saba or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Saba costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 and $1.125. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Saba or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash, with 1M tokens against 33K.
Has any benchmark tested both Saba and Qwen3.6 Flash?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Saba has results on AA Intelligence Index, GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) and Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run); Qwen3.6 Flash on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run). Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.