| Signal | Qwen3.5-Flash | Delta | R1 |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 83 | +33 | |
Benchmarks | 67 | -11 | |
Pricing | 0 | -2 | |
Context window size | 95 | +19 | |
Recency | 100 | +46 | |
Output Capacity | 80 | +10 | |
| Overall Result | 4 wins | of 6 | 2 wins |
30
days higher
0
days
0
days higher
Alibaba
DeepSeek
Qwen3.5-Flash saves you $175.50/month
That's $2106.00/year compared to R1 at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | Qwen3.5-Flash | R1 | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 79 | 68 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Rank | #85 | #176 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Quality Rank | #85 | #176 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Adoption Rank | #85 | #176 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 1000K | 64K | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Pricing | $0.07/$0.26/M | $0.70/$2.50/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 83 | 50 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Benchmarks | 67 | 77 | R1 |
| Pricing | 0 | 3 | R1 |
| Context window size | 95 | 76 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Recency | 100 | 54 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Output Capacity | 80 | 70 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 79/100 (rank #85), placing it in the top 71% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 68/100 (rank #176), placing it in the top 40% of all 290 models tracked.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a 11-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Qwen3.5-Flash offers 90% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $4.88/month with Qwen3.5-Flash vs $48.00/month with R1 - a $43.13 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-Flash 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 ($0.26/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (79/100) 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-Flash clearly outperforms R1 with a significant 11.400000000000006-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger choice. However, R1 may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Qwen3.5-Flash
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5-Flash
90% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
Qwen3.5-Flash
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen3.5-Flash
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen3.5-Flash
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
| Capability | Qwen3.5-Flash | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input)differs | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Modediffers | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Search | ||
| Image Output |
Alibaba
DeepSeek
Qwen3.5-Flash saves you $3.83/month
That's 90% 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-Flash | R1 |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 1M | 64K |
| Max Output Tokens | 65,536 | 16,000 |
| Open Source | No | Yes |
| Created | Feb 25, 2026 | Jan 20, 2025 |
Qwen3.5-Flash scores 79/100 (rank #85) compared to R1's 68/100 (rank #176), giving it a 11-point advantage. Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger overall choice, though R1 may excel in specific areas like certain benchmarks.
Qwen3.5-Flash is ranked #85 and R1 is ranked #176 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.26/M output tokens vs R1's $2.50/M output tokens - 9.6x more expensive. Input token pricing: Qwen3.5-Flash at $0.07/M vs R1 at $0.70/M.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to R1's 64,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.