Qwen3.6 35B A3B vs Solar Pro 3
Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads Solar Pro 3 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 18.2 to 7.8, and Solar Pro 3 costs 1.7x less per output token ($0.60 vs $1.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 10 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B or Solar Pro 3: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens) and work measured by IFBench, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 10
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B only
- 10
- Solar Pro 3 only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 5 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads, 18.2 against 7.8.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B leads, 13.1 against 1.4.
Same board, both measured
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Qwen3.6 35B A3B takes 262K tokens against 131K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Solar Pro 3
Qwen3.6 35B A3B $0.0006, Solar Pro 3 $0.0004 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B not benchmarked, Solar Pro 3 not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- General, 23.1 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- Long context reasoning (AA-LCR): Qwen3.6 35B A3B 71.7% against Solar Pro 3 32.3%, 39.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B $1.00 against Solar Pro 3 $0.60 per million output tokens, 1.7x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.6 35B A3B takes 262K tokens, Solar Pro 3 131K.
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.
| Category | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Bars | Solar Pro 3 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 3 | 0 | ||
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Agentic work | 2 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 2 | 0 | ||
| General | 1 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 9 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index30
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 41.9 | 16.2 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| SciCode | 36.6% | 25.5% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 34.8% | 7.6% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Terminal-Bench | 24.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| WeirdML | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 18.2 | 7.8 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 143.7 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 13.1 | 1.4 | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 95.3% | 86.3% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.1% | 72.4% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 22.2% | 10.3% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 84.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 22.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 86.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 20.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 20 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 64.4% | 71.2% | Solar Pro 3 |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 71.7% | 32.3% | Qwen3.6 35B A3B |
| DTBench | 73.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| LMCA | 29.7% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 44.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 35B A3B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 43 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Solar Pro 3 | 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
Solar Pro 3 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | Qwen3.6 35B A3B | Upstage Solar Pro 3 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Upstage |
| Weights | Open weights | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 27, 2026 | January 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 131K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.10 | $0.15 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.60 |
| 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 Qwen3.6 35B A3B better than Solar Pro 3 for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for a larger context window (262K against 131K tokens) and work measured by IFBench, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 35B A3B or Solar Pro 3?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $1.00 per million output tokens; Solar Pro 3 costs $0.15 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.6 35B A3B or Solar Pro 3?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.6 35B A3B vs Solar Pro 3 comparison based on?
10 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen3.6 35B A3B's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Solar Pro 3's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.