| Signal | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Delta | R1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +33 | |
Benchmarks | 73 | -4 | |
Pricing | 2 | 0 | |
Context window size | 86 | +10 | |
Recency | 100 | +47 | |
Output Capacity | 80 | +10 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
6
days higher
1
days
23
days higher
Alibaba
DeepSeek
Qwen3.5 397B A17B saves you $39.00/month
That's $468.00/year compared to R1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | R1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 75 | 76 | R1 |
| Rank | #46 | #44 | R1 |
| Quality Rank | #46 | #44 | R1 |
| Adoption Rank | #46 | #44 | R1 |
| Parameters | 397B | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 262K | 64K | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Pricing | $0.39/$2.34/M | $0.70/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 50 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Benchmarks | 73 | 77 | R1 |
| Pricing | 2 | 3 | R1 |
| Context window size | 86 | 76 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Recency | 100 | 53 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 70 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
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%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 75/100 (rank #46), placing it in the top 84% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 76/100 (rank #44), placing it in the top 85% 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.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B offers 15% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $40.95/month with Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs $48.00/month with R1 - a $7.05 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. Qwen3.5 397B A17B also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (262K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($2.34/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (76/100) 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
Qwen3.5 397B A17B and R1 are extremely close in overall performance (only 1.2999999999999972 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
15% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
DeepSeek
Qwen3.5 397B A17B saves you $0.7500/month
That's 18% cheaper than R1 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 | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 262K | 64K |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 16,000 |
| Open Source | Yes | Yes |
| Created | Feb 16, 2026 | Jan 20, 2025 |
R1 scores 76/100 (rank #44) compared to Qwen3.5 397B A17B's 75/100 (rank #46), giving it a 1-point advantage. R1 is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3.5 397B A17B may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is ranked #46 and R1 is ranked #44 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.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B is cheaper at $2.34/M output tokens vs R1's $2.50/M output tokens - 1.1x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3.5 397B A17B at $0.39/M vs R1 at $0.70/M.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B has a larger context window of 262,144 tokens compared to R1's 64,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.