Qwen3.6 Flash vs Extract
Updated October 21, 2026; no benchmark has tested both models yet.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $1.125
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- No data
Qwen3.6 Flash or Extract: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen3.6 Flash has results on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Extract has none yet. 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
Long documents
Listed context window
No call
Both take 1M tokens.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Extract
Qwen3.6 Flash $0.0008, Extract $0.0000 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- Qwen3.6 Flash not benchmarked, Extract 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
- Qwen3.6 Flash $1.125 against Extract Free per million output tokens.
- Context window
- Both take 1M tokens.
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 | Qwen3.6 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 326.4 | Not measured | 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 index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 142.9 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 83.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| SimpleBench | 35.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Chess puzzles | 12.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 18.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards measured
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 84.4% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 22.5% | Not measured | 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 index1 board measured
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 Flash | Extract | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SimpleQA Verified | 15.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 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
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 | Qwen3.6 Flash | ScaleDown Extract |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Scaledown |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | April 27, 2026 | October 13, 2026 |
| Context window | 1M | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.1875 | $0.04 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.125 | 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 Qwen3.6 Flash 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, Qwen3.6 Flash or Extract?
Qwen3.6 Flash costs $0.1875 per million input tokens and $1.125 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, Qwen3.6 Flash or Extract?
Neither: both take 1M tokens.
Has any benchmark tested both Qwen3.6 Flash and Extract?
No benchmark has tested both yet. Qwen3.6 Flash has results on ALE-Bench, Epoch Capabilities Index and GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run); Extract has none yet. Compare them on price and context instead. Data as of October 21, 2026.