Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.5 9B
Compare Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 and Qwen3.5 9B, both from Qwen, context windows of 131K vs 262K, tested across 52 shared challenges.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen3.5 9B
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen3.5 9B is 4.0x 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
Output
$0.60
Qwen3.5 9B
Input
$0.10
1.1× cheaper
Output
$0.15
4.0× cheaper
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper on both — 1.1× input, 4.0× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
54%
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 uses 53.9x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Qwen3.5 9B
56%Vocabulary47%
14wSentence Length15w
0.37Hedging0.41
5.7Bold6.9
4.0Lists4.8
0.54Emoji0.00
0.70Headings0.91
0.14Transitions0.12
Based on 22 + 21 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
