Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 35B A3B, both from Qwen, context windows of 131K vs 262K, tested across 53 shared challenges.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 35B A3B
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 Thinking 2507 is 3.3x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input
$0.11
2.3× cheaper
Output
$0.60
3.3× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3.5 35B A3B
Input
$0.25
Output
$2.00
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper on both — 2.3× input, 3.3× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
47%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 uses 53.9x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 35B A3B
56%Vocabulary51%
14wSentence Length15w
0.37Hedging0.39
5.7Bold6.8
4.0Lists4.8
0.54Emoji0.00
0.70Headings0.84
0.14Transitions0.14
Based on 22 + 23 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
