| Signal | Qwen-Plus | Delta | Qwen-Turbo |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 50 | -- | |
Pricing | 99 | -1 | |
Context window size | 95 | +14 | |
Recency | 55 | -- | |
Output Capacity | 75 | +10 | |
| Overall Result | 2 wins | of 5 | 1 wins |
8
days higher
5
days
17
days higher
Alibaba
Alibaba
Qwen-Turbo saves you $55.25/month
That's $663.00/year compared to Qwen-Plus at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen-Plus | Qwen-Turbo | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 40 | 40 | -- |
| Rank | #272 | #270 | Qwen-Turbo |
| Quality Rank | #272 | #270 | Qwen-Turbo |
| Adoption Rank | #272 | #270 | Qwen-Turbo |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 131K | Qwen-Plus |
| Pricing | $0.26/$0.78/M | $0.03/$0.13/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 50 | 50 | Qwen-Plus |
| Pricing | 99 | 100 | Qwen-Turbo |
| Context window size | 95 | 81 | Qwen-Plus |
| Recency | 55 | 55 | Qwen-Plus |
| Output Capacity | 75 | 65 | Qwen-Plus |
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 40/100 (rank #272), placing it in the top 7% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 40/100 (rank #270), placing it in the top 7% of all 290 models tracked.
With only a 0-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.
Qwen-Turbo offers 84% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $2.44/month with Qwen-Turbo vs $15.60/month with Qwen-Plus - a $13.16 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. Qwen-Turbo also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.13/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (40/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Qwen-Plus and Qwen-Turbo are extremely close in overall performance (only 0 points apart). Your best choice depends entirely on which specific strengths matter most for your use case.
Best for Quality
Qwen-Plus
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen-Turbo
84% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen-Plus
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen-Plus
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen-Plus
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen-Plus | Qwen-Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
Alibaba
Qwen-Turbo saves you $1.19/month
That's 85% cheaper than Qwen-Plus 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 | Qwen-Plus | Qwen-Turbo |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 131K |
| Max Output Tokens | 32,768 | 8,192 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Feb 1, 2025 | Feb 1, 2025 |
Both Qwen-Plus and Qwen-Turbo score 40/100, making them extremely close competitors. Choose based on pricing, provider ecosystem, or specific capability requirements.
Qwen-Plus is ranked #272 and Qwen-Turbo is ranked #270 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.
Qwen-Turbo is cheaper at $0.13/M output tokens vs Qwen-Plus's $0.78/M output tokens - 6.0x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen-Plus at $0.26/M vs Qwen-Turbo at $0.03/M.
Qwen-Plus has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to Qwen-Turbo's 131,072 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.