Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Compare Qwen3.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.7 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.7 Flash 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
Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.7 Flash on Vision Evals
Qwen3.5 35B A3B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads 54.1% to 34.4%.
Overall, Qwen3.5 35B A3B averages 69.4% (#26 of 53) against 61.5% (#45 of 53) for Qwen3.7 Flash.
Qwen3.7 Flash is both cheaper ($0.0001 vs $0.0016 per sample) and faster (6.3s vs 31.9s per sample).
Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.7 Flash Comparison Table
Evals updated September 5, 2026Pricing updated September 11, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.5 35B A3B | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Jul 2026 |
| Context Window | 262K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 35B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.313 | $0.030 |
| Output $/1M | $1.25 | $0.130 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Classification | Demo | |
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Image Tagging | ||
| Multi-Label Classification | ||
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 69.4% | 61.5% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0016 | $0.0001 |
| Avg speed / sample | 31.88s | 6.28s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection | 52.9% ±3.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 49.5 to 55.9 | 42.8% |
| Counting | 62.6% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 64.9 | 46.0% |
| Identification | 80.2% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 81.3 | 84.4% |
| OCR | 83.0% ±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 82.7 to 83.5 | 84.1% |
| Data Extraction | 83.5% ±2.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 80.4 to 85.6 | 77.3% |
| Reasoning (low) | 54.1% ±0.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 53.6 to 54.3 | 34.4% |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 61.6% |
Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.7 Flash: Overview
The Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is a native vision-language model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team, released on February 24, 2026, as a high-efficiency entry in the Qwen 3.5 family. It utilizes a sophisticated hybrid architecture that integrates Gated Delta Networks with a sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) system. While the model houses 35 billion total parameters, its routing mechanism activates only 8 routed experts and 1 shared expert per token, totaling approximately 3 billion active parameters. This design achieves cross-generational parity with the previous flagship Qwen3-235B dense model, delivering comparable reasoning and multimodal intelligence with significantly reduced inference latency and compute requirements. Available under the Apache 2.0 license, it is released in both base and instruction-tuned variants for seamless integration with open-source stacks like vLLM and Hugging Face Transformers.
Designed for the emerging era of agentic AI, the model utilizes a unified multimodal foundation built through early-fusion training. This approach allows it to outperform the prior Qwen3-VL series in spatial grounding, document analysis, and UI/GUI interaction. It features a native context window of 262,144 tokens, which is extensible up to 1,010,000 tokensvia RoPE scaling, and provides global support for 201 languages and dialects. This combination of a compact active parameter count and frontier-level visual comprehension makes it a versatile tool for developers requiring a balance of high-throughput speed and sophisticated visual reasoning for long-context workflows.
Qwen3.7 Flash is the low-latency, cost-oriented tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.7 series, a vision-language reasoning model that accepts interleaved text and image input and returns text. It is built as a hybrid thinking model: like the rest of the Qwen3.7, Qwen3.6, and Qwen3.5 families served through Alibaba Cloud Model Studio, it can either emit an explicit reasoning trace before answering or respond directly, with thinking behavior controlled by an enable_thinking switch that defaults to on for the Qwen3.7 generation. The model exposes a context window of roughly one million tokens and a maximum generation length of 65,536 tokens, which allows long multi-image sequences, long documents, and extended agent trajectories to be held in a single request.
Functionally, Qwen3.7 Flash targets multimodal agent workloads rather than pure chat. Reported strengths include object recognition, spatial understanding, and perception of real-world scenes, alongside visual coding, search, and computer-use style interaction where the model reads screen content and reasons over interface state. Weights are not published; the model is a proprietary endpoint positioned below Qwen3.7 Plus and Qwen3.7 Max in the same series, and it supports function calling and tool use for agentic pipelines.
Frequently Asked Questions
On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5 35B A3B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 69.4% (#26 of 53) against 61.5% (#45 of 53) for Qwen3.7 Flash. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.5 35B A3B leads with 54.1% against 34.4%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0001 per sample against $0.0016. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.7 Flash is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 6.3s per inference against 31.9s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.
Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.