Noometry

Model comparison

DBRX vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

DBRX Databricks

29.4

Rank #311 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. DBRX scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 14.9.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 32.9% for DBRX and 82.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • DBRX has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

DBRXQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderDatabricksAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.442.5
Released2024-03-272026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked2132

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 32.9 (#266), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding11321412
LMArena WebDev—1244
ALE-Bench—221.8
HumanEval+70.1%—
MBPP+55.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

DBRX: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 21.4 (#222), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11131403
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 24.3 (#269), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math11451407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
MATH Level 511.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 14.9 (#294), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond32.9%82.3%
LMArena Expert10761407
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 29.3 (#268), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English10711385
LMArena Chinese10681446
LMArena French10961412
LMArena German10571390
LMArena Japanese9901368
LMArena Korean9931344
LMArena Russian10781379
LMArena Spanish10641400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 57.5 (#270), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11121374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 33.7 (#258), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query11121392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

DBRX: 33.6 (#275), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkDBRXQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text11191397
LMArena Creative Writing11041343
LMArena Multi-Turn11111393

Frequently asked questions

Is DBRX better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is DBRX or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 32.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do DBRX and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. DBRX has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper