Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-9B costs 1.7x less per output token than Qwen3.5-Flash ($0.15 vs $0.26 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 5 benchmarks have a result for both.

Qwen3.5-9BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
0
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
41.1
Overall
50.1
Output $/M
$0.26
5
vs boards won of 5 shared

Qwen3.5-9B or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-9B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen3.5-9B for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($0.15 vs $0.26 per million).

Shared results
5
Qwen3.5-9B only
11
Qwen3.5-Flash only
50
Like-for-like categories
4 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
Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Math, 22.8 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Qwen3.5-9B 61.7% against Qwen3.5-Flash 84.4%, 22.8 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
Context window
Qwen3.5-9B takes 262K 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
CategoryQwen3.5-9BBarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Intelligence01
Reasoning01
Math01
General02
All shared boards05
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index12 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
AA Coding Index23.5Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B 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
SciCode29.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)24.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Terminal-Bench9.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B 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
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index13.3Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Epoch Capabilities Index139.3143.5Qwen3.5-Flash
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom86.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA DiamondNot measured82.8%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)Not measured81.9%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)80.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)14.9%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)79.0%82.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
Chess puzzlesNot measured14.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured20.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash 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
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIMENot measured92.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
OTIS Mock AIME61.7%84.4%Qwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured18.2%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1413Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MathArena13.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index12 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU ProNot measured84.1%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)Not measured84.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
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
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured33.0%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured20.3%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1415Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1407Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1398Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1394Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-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 Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured42.5%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured70.6%Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
IFBench66.7%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)70.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen3.5-9B measured
DTBench71.2%82.9%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMCA24.5%29.1%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena TextNot measured1397Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1374Only 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 measured1445Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1390Only 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 measured1400Only 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 25 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-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

Qwen3.5-9B$0.0002Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3.5-9B$0.0054Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Qwen3.5-9B$0.021Fits in one request
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 Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationQwen3.5-9BQwen3.5-Flash
MakerQwenQwen
WeightsOpen weightsNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 10, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window262K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.065
Output $/Mtok$0.15$0.26
Coding indexNot benchmarked41.1
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Qwen3.5-9B better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Only Qwen3.5-Flash has a coding score, 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index; Qwen3.5-9B has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.5-9B for output tokens 1.7x cheaper ($0.15 vs $0.26 per million).

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-9B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 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, Qwen3.5-9B or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?

5 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.5-9B'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