Model comparison
Qwen3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5 Flash #134 (Supported); Qwen3.5 Plus #138 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Qwen3.5 Flash and Qwen3.5 Plus share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Qwen3.5 Flash; 2 to Qwen3.5 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- Qwen3.5 Flash only
- 0
- Qwen3.5 Plus only
- 2
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 Flash if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Plus only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5 Flash has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 47.65 versus 47.2. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
Qwen3.5 Plus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $2.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.10 input / $0.40 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash. That is roughly 6.0x on output cost alone.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Qwen3.5 Flash | Δ | Qwen3.5 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | Qwen3.5 Flash4.7 | Margin→ 11.6 | Qwen3.5 Plus16.3 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 6.207%B 21.034%Winner: Qwen3.5 PlusΔ 14.8FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): Qwen3.5 Flash scored 6.207%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 21.034%. Qwen3.5 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 0.000%B 2.083%Winner: Qwen3.5 PlusΔ 2.1FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): Qwen3.5 Flash scored 0.000%; Qwen3.5 Plus scored 2.083%. Qwen3.5 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Qwen3.5 Flash$0.1 input / $0.4 output | Qwen3.5 Plus$0.4 input / $2.4 output | Qwen3.5 Flash has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Qwen3.5 FlashNot available | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Qwen3.5 Flash1M | Qwen3.5 Plus1M | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Flash is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 47.65 to 47.2. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 6.207% and 21.034%.
Which is better for math, Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 Plus?
Qwen3.5 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 16.3 versus 4.7. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.