Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B
Compare Llama 4 Maverick and Qwen3.5 122B A10B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B: Overview
Llama 4 Maverick, introduced on April 5, 2025, is one of the first models in Meta’s Llama 4 family, designed as a natively multimodal model supporting text + image inputs with text outputs. It employs a Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) architecture with 128 experts, activating ~17B parameters per token out of a pool of ~400B total parameters. This design improves scalability, efficiency, and reasoning capacity. Maverick has a 1M-token context window, enabling it to handle large documents, extended conversations, and multimodal reasoning. Its knowledge cutoff is August 2024.
The model is released under the Llama 4 Community License and comes in both base and instruction-tuned (“Instruct”) versions. Maverick is widely deployed via Hugging Face, Google Vertex AI, Amazon Bedrock, and Oracle Cloud, making it one of the most accessible large open-weight models. However, it outputs text only (no image/audio generation) and, while input capacity is huge, output limits are typically much smaller. The MoE design also raises hardware demands, as maintaining 128 experts requires significant compute resources, and Meta’s license introduces restrictions around commercial-scale use.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is a high-capacity multimodal Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) model developed by Alibaba’s Qwen team as part of the Qwen3.5 model family. The architecture contains 122 billion total parameters while activating roughly 10 billion per token through sparse expert routing, allowing the model to balance large-scale reasoning ability with relatively efficient inference compared to dense models of similar size.
The model is designed to process both text and visual inputs within a unified multimodal framework, enabling tasks that require reasoning across images, documents, charts, and natural language. This makes it suitable for applications such as document understanding, diagram interpretation, and complex visual question answering.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B supports a native context window of approximately 256,000 tokens, which can be extended further through techniques such as YaRN scaling to support very long-context workloads. Released under the Apache 2.0 license, it builds on earlier Qwen multimodal systems and provides developers with an open-weight model capable of handling demanding multimodal reasoning and analysis tasks.
Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen3.5 122B A10B Comparison Table
| Property | Llama 4 Maverick | Qwen3.5 122B A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Meta | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 1.0M | 256K |
| Parameters | 400B | 122B |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.150 | $0.260 |
| Output $/1M | $0.600 | $2.08 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 76.12% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.77s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 92.9%(13/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology