Model comparison

Falcon-180B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. Falcon-180B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 57.9 to 29.1.
  • Falcon-180B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Falcon-180B and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Falcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderTechnology Innovation InstituteAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index32.242.5
Released2023-09-062026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1632

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Falcon-180B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1244
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Falcon-180B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Falcon-180B: 19.1 (#269), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts10071403
Epoch Capabilities Index112.13143.98
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
HellaSwag89%—
LAMBADA79.8%—
PIQA84.9%—
WinoGrande87.1%—

Math Not comparable

Falcon-180B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K54.4%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Falcon-180B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407
ARC (AI2) Challenge67.8%—
BoolQ89%—
MMLU70.6%—
OpenBookQA64.2%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Falcon-180B: 25.2 (#286), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English10001385
LMArena Chinese—1446
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1390
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Russian—1379
LMArena Spanish—1400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Falcon-180B: 53.4 (#286), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following10471374

Long Context Not comparable

Falcon-180B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Falcon-180B: 29.1 (#295), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkFalcon-180BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text10541397
LMArena Creative Writing10891343
LMArena Multi-Turn10131393

Frequently asked questions

Is Falcon-180B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 32.2 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Falcon-180B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. Falcon-180B has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper