Model comparison

Qwen1.5 4b Chat vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 13 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5 4b Chat Alibaba (Qwen)

28.3

Rank #319 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5 4b Chat scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 58.2 to 23.9.
  • Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5 4b Chat and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Qwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index28.342.3
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked1332

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 28.6 (#305), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding9991412
LMArena WebDev—1243
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 17.7 (#277), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts9761404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 27.9 (#233), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math10261407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 26.2 (#252), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert9801408
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.2 (#285), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English9791385
LMArena Chinese10241446
LMArena German9021389
LMArena Russian9521379
LMArena French—1412
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Spanish—1399

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.3 (#295), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following9791374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#285), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query9881392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.9 (#304), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5 4b ChatQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text9971397
LMArena Creative Writing9691343
LMArena Multi-Turn9771393

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 28.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5 4b Chat or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 28.6 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5 4b Chat and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper