Model comparison
GPT-6 Sol vs Qwen3.5 35B-A3B
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-6 Sol scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B in 0 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-6 Sol leads 74.0 to 24.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is CritPt: 30.9% for GPT-6 Sol and 0.6% for Qwen3.5 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $10 for GPT-6 Sol.
- GPT-6 Sol accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 61.8 | 42.0 |
| Released | 2026-09-22 | 2026-02-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1.05M | 262K |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $10 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 45 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 60.1 (#11), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 33.8 (#251)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1688 | 1254 |
| SciCode | 57.6% | 29.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1447 | 1410 |
| DeepSWE | 68.8% | — |
| FrontierCode | 49.3% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 2,462 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol: 37.2 (#36), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 54.3% | — |
| GDP.pdf | 26.4% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 14,428 | — |
Reasoning GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 74.0 (#9), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 24.6 (#161)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 30.9% | 0.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1418 | 1400 |
| DTBench | 97.3% | 80% |
| LMCA | 59.1% | 29.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.72 | 142.52 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 89.6% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 90.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 95.5% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 10% |
| EBR-Bench | 53.3% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 56% | — |
Math GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 87.2 (#7), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 39.9 (#97)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 70% |
| LMArena Math | 1402 | 1404 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 89.8% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 90% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56% |
| ProofBench | 83% | — |
Knowledge GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 64.8 (#15), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 47.8 (#79)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.3% | 83.5% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 6.5% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1439 | 1408 |
| SimpleQA Verified | 60.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-6 Sol: 47.6 (#10), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1245 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 36.9% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 58.3% | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
GPT-6 Sol: 50.5 (#118), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 50.0 (#127)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1385 | 1378 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1405 | 1457 |
| LMArena French | 1410 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1390 | 1367 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1385 | 1325 |
| LMArena Korean | 1341 | 1356 |
| LMArena Russian | 1401 | 1376 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1384 | 1392 |
Instruction Following GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 74.5 (#94), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 72.8 (#128)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1412 | 1379 |
Long Context Too close to call
GPT-6 Sol: 43.1 (#108), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 42.4 (#127)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1411 | 1389 |
Writing & Preference GPT-6 Sol leads
GPT-6 Sol: 71.9 (#18), Qwen3.5 35B-A3B: 57.9 (#124)
| Benchmark | GPT-6 Sol | Qwen3.5 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1395 | 1395 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1378 | 1346 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | 1390 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 2125 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-6 Sol better than Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
GPT-6 Sol is the stronger model overall, scoring 61.8 to 42.0 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5 35B-A3B costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-6 Sol's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-6 Sol or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; GPT-6 Sol lists at $2 and $10.
Is GPT-6 Sol or Qwen3.5 35B-A3B better for coding?
GPT-6 Sol scores higher on coding benchmarks: 60.1 versus 33.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-6 Sol does, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-6 Sol and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-6 Sol has 45 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 35B-A3B has 28.