Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
Compare Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash, both from Qwen, context windows of 262K vs 1.0M, tested across 53 shared challenges. Updated May 2026.
Which is better, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash?
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash are both competitive models. Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs $0.6/M input tokens vs $0.1/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash. Context windows: 262K vs 1000K tokens. Compare their real outputs side by side below.
Key Differences Between Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B is made by qwen while Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash is from qwen. Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a 262K token context window compared to Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash's 1000K. On pricing, Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs $0.6/M input tokens vs $0.1/M for Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash.
Per 1M tokens
Qwen: Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper on both — 6.0× input, 9.0× output
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 9.0x cheaper per token — worth considering if cost matters.
Style Comparison
Qwen: Qwen3.5 397B A17B uses 9.0x more emoji
