Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Nothing here. The model returned empty. We stared at it for a while.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B, both from Qwen, context windows of 131K vs 262K, tested across 39 shared challenges. Updated April 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 or Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B?
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B. Context windows: 131K vs 262K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is from qwen. Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 has a 131K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 262K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens vs $0.6/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Runner-up
No community votes yet. On paper, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has the edge — newer, bigger context window.
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is 6.0x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
98%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 uses 2.4x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B
56%Vocabulary54%
14wSentence Length14w
0.37Hedging0.39
5.7Bold6.9
4.0Lists4.2
0.54Emoji0.23
0.70Headings0.93
0.14Transitions0.17
Based on 22 + 23 text responses
vsAsk them anything yourself
FAQ