whichllmmodel
Back to Dashboard
Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

VS
DeepSeek

DeepSeek V4 Flash

✍️ Analysis by:the whichllmmodel Editorial Team|📅 Updated: June 2026

Decision Recommendation

⚖️ Editorial Verdict: In our analysis, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is the premium intelligence choice, scoring 0.4% higher on coding benchmarks. However, this accuracy premium comes with a cost overhead: DeepSeek V4 Flash is 3.2x cheaper to run. If you are building high-volume, simple chatbots or processing massive amounts of text where budget is critical, DeepSeek V4 Flash offers excellent cost savings. For agentic reasoning, code refactoring, or complex logical tasks, the accuracy premium of Qwen3.6-35B-A3B fully justifies the cost.

Model Specs

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+0.4%)
49.5%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+6.0%)
86%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)
$0.56Input: $0.25 | Output: $1.50
Speed1.2x faster
128 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Model Specs

DeepSeek V4 Flash

Benchmarks & Scores

Coding (swe-bench-pro)
49.1%
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
80%

Cost & Performance

Cost (per 1M tokens)3.2x cheaper
$0.17Input: $0.14 | Output: $0.28
Speed
109.1 tps
Context Window
1M tokens
Read our data collection methodology

Frequently Asked Questions

DeepSeek V4 Flash is cheaper than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B. DeepSeek V4 Flash has a blended cost of $0.17/1M tokens, which is about 3.2x cheaper than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at $0.56/1M tokens.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is faster than DeepSeek V4 Flash. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B generates 128 tokens per second (tps) compared to DeepSeek V4 Flash which generates 109.1 tokens per second.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is better for coding tasks. It scores 49.5% on coding evaluations (swe-bench-pro) compared to DeepSeek V4 Flash which scores 49.1%.

Want to customize weights or add more models?

Open our interactive dashboard where you can adjust your priority levels for speed, budget, or accuracy slider-bars and watch model rankings calculate dynamically.

Customize in Interactive Dashboard