Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
Compare Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 53 shared challenges.
Our Verdict
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
No community votes yet. On paper, these are closely matched - try both with your actual task to see which fits your workflow.
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash is 8.0x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Too close to call
API pricing
Cost per 1M tokens
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Input
$0.40
Output
$3.20
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
Input
$0.10
4.0× cheaper
Output
$0.40
8.0× cheaper
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper on both — 4.0× input, 8.0× output
Writing DNA
Style Comparison
Similarity
93%
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B uses 4.1x more emoji
Qwen: Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
49%Vocabulary50%
15wSentence Length14w
0.29Hedging0.35
6.2Bold6.9
4.8Lists4.2
0.10Emoji0.03
0.88Headings1.00
0.20Transitions0.15
Based on 24 + 23 text responses
Research
What we learned reading every model
FAQ
