Noometry

Model comparison

Llama 3.1-405B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.

Llama 3.1-405B Meta

30.4

Rank #279 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. Llama 3.1-405B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 36.3 to 17.3.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 9.7% for Llama 3.1-405B and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Llama 3.1-405B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Llama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderMetaAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.442.3
Released2024-07-232026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked4232

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 32.7 (#257), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding12911412
LMArena WebDev—1243
WeirdML21.4%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Llama 3.1-405B: 20.9 (#131), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
TheAgentCompany7.4%—
Cybench7.5%—
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 16.4 (#293), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts12701404
DTBench61.4%82.9%
Epoch Capabilities Index128.76143.98
SimpleBench23%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark45%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
LMCA—29.1%
BIG-Bench Hard82.9%—
ForecastBench59.9—
HellaSwag89.2%—
PIQA85.9%—
WinoGrande89.2%—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 17.3 (#283), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20259.7%84.4%
LMArena Math12811407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
Omni-MATH24.9%—
MATH Level 549.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 30.4 (#221), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond50.9%82.3%
LMArena Expert12431408
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
MMLU-Pro72.3%—
Confabulations17.6%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
GPQA (HELM)52.2%—
ARC (AI2) Challenge95.3%—
MMLU84.5%—
TriviaQA82.7%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 40.9 (#209), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12481385
LMArena Chinese12421446
LMArena French12781412
LMArena German12521389
LMArena Japanese12081369
LMArena Korean11841344
LMArena Russian12651379
LMArena Spanish12591399

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 66.1 (#209), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12591374
IFEval81.1%—

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 38.4 (#192), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12661392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Llama 3.1-405B: 39.1 (#246), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkLlama 3.1-405BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12841397
LMArena Creative Writing12621343
LMArena Multi-Turn12971393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing870—
WildBench78.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Llama 3.1-405B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Llama 3.1-405B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 32.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Llama 3.1-405B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. Llama 3.1-405B has 42 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper