Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B, both from Qwen, tested across 31 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 costs $0.00015/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 costs $0.00015/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 is 4235x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
98%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507 uses 2.0x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
57%Vocabulary54%
18wSentence Length14w
0.40Hedging0.39
5.9Bold6.9
4.8Lists4.2
0.45Emoji0.23
1.07Headings0.93
0.11Transitions0.17
Based on 18 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
FAQ