Qwen-Plus vs Extract
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.78
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- No data
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 0
- Qwen-Plus only
- 28
- Extract only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract
Qwen-Plus $0.0006, Extract $0.0000 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen-Plus not benchmarked, Extract not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- Qwen-Plus $0.78 against Extract Free per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Both take 1M tokens.
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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: coding | 1328 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | 1343 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here | |||
IntelligenceNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 2 boards here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 48.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | 1317 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | 1328 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | 1333 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 17.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| MATH level 5 | 65.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: math | 1326 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | 1332 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text: science | 1352 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | 1350 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | 1349 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | 1303 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index14 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 81.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMCA | 24.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text | 1326 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | 1303 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | 1292 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: English | 1339 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | 1310 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | 1347 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | 1251 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | 1323 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | 1336 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | 1324 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | 1296 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | 1270 | Not measured | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen-Plus | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Extract costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Extract costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Extract 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 | Qwen-Plus | ScaleDown Extract |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Scaledown |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | February 1, 2025 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.26 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.78 | Free |
| 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 Qwen-Plus better than Extract for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, Qwen-Plus or Extract?
Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 per million input tokens and $0.78 per million output tokens; Extract costs $0.04 and Free. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen-Plus or Extract?
Neither: both take 1M tokens.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen-Plus vs Extract comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Qwen-Plus's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Extract's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.