| Signal | Llama 4 Maverick | Delta | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 67 | -17 | |
Benchmarks | 70 | +3 | |
Pricing | 99 | +1 | |
Context window size | 96 | +10 | |
Recency | 67 | -33 | |
Output Capacity | 70 | -10 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
Score History
67.9
current score
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
right now
68.5
current score
Meta
Alibaba
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $36.25/month
That's $435.00/year compared to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 68 | 69 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Rank | #66 | #64 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Quality Rank | #66 | #64 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Adoption Rank | #66 | #64 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Parameters | -- | 35B | -- |
| Context Window | 1049K | 262K | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Pricing | $0.15/$0.60/M | $0.16/$1.30/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 67 | 83 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Benchmarks | 70 | 67 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Pricing | 99 | 99 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Context window size | 96 | 86 | Llama 4 Maverick |
| Recency | 67 | 100 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
| Output Capacity | 70 | 80 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
Our score (0-100) is driven by benchmark performance (90%) from Arena Elo ratings, MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations. Capabilities and context window serve as tiebreakers (10%). Learn more about our methodology.
Scores 68/100 (rank #66), placing it in the top 78% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 69/100 (rank #64), placing it in the top 78% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 1-point gap, these models are in the same performance tier. The practical difference in output quality is minimal - your choice should depend on pricing, latency requirements, and specific feature needs.
Llama 4 Maverick offers 49% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $11.25/month with Llama 4 Maverick vs $21.94/month with Qwen3.5-35B-A3B - a $10.69 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Llama 4 Maverick also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1049K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.60/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (69/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B are extremely close in overall performance (only 0.5999999999999943 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Llama 4 Maverick
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Llama 4 Maverick
49% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Llama 4 Maverick
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Llama 4 Maverick
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Llama 4 Maverick
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Meta
| Capability | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoningdiffers | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Meta
Alibaba
Llama 4 Maverick saves you $0.8625/month
That's 47% cheaper than Qwen3.5-35B-A3B at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1.0M | 262K |
| Max Output Tokens | 16,384 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Apr 5, 2025 | Feb 25, 2026 |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B scores 69/100 (rank #64) compared to Llama 4 Maverick's 68/100 (rank #66), giving it a 1-point advantage. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is the stronger overall choice, though Llama 4 Maverick may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Llama 4 Maverick is ranked #66 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is ranked #64 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (90%) from MMLU, GPQA, HumanEval, SWE-bench, and 15+ standardized evaluations, with capabilities and context window as tiebreakers (10%). Scores update hourly.
Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper at $0.60/M output tokens vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B's $1.30/M output tokens - 2.2x more expensive. Input token pricing: Llama 4 Maverick at $0.15/M vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B at $0.16/M.
Llama 4 Maverick has a larger context window of 1,048,576 tokens compared to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B's 262,144 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.