Model comparison

Qwen3.5-Flash vs Wizardlm 70b

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Wizardlm 70b Microsoft

33.0

Rank #249 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 70b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 57.9 to 34.8.
  • Wizardlm 70b has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.5-Flash and Wizardlm 70b specifications
Qwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Microsoft
Noometry Index42.533.0
Released2026-02-23—
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window1M—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.10—
Output $ / M tokens$0.40—
Results tracked3212

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242), Wizardlm 70b: 31.4 (#285)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Coding14121081
LMArena WebDev1244—
ALE-Bench221.8—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: —, Wizardlm 70b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
Vending-Bench 2462.69—

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72), Wizardlm 70b: 20.7 (#234)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Hard Prompts14031079
Chess Puzzles21%—
Mystery Game Puzzles20%—
DTBench82.9%—
LMCA29.1%—
Epoch Capabilities Index143.98—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158), Wizardlm 70b: 32.2 (#218)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Math14071116
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)18.2%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202584.4%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)6.2%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)0%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93), Wizardlm 70b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
GPQA Diamond82.3%—
SimpleQA Verified20.3%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate10.5%—
LMArena Expert1407—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121), Wizardlm 70b: 29.6 (#265)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Non-English13851078
LMArena Chinese14461052
LMArena German13901083
LMArena Russian13791155
LMArena French1412—
LMArena Japanese1368—
LMArena Korean1344—
LMArena Spanish1400—

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139), Wizardlm 70b: 56.3 (#273)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Instruction Following13741093

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124), Wizardlm 70b: 33.3 (#263)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Longer Query13921097

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122), Wizardlm 70b: 34.8 (#269)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5-FlashWizardlm 70b
LMArena Text13971120
LMArena Creative Writing13431149
LMArena Multi-Turn13931108

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5-Flash better than Wizardlm 70b?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen3.5-Flash or Wizardlm 70b better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-Flash and Wizardlm 70b share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-Flash has 32 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 70b has 12.

Related comparisons

Go deeper