| Signal | o4 Mini High | Delta | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 100 | +17 | |
Pricing | 4 | +4 | |
Context window size | 84 | -11 | |
Recency | 71 | -29 | |
Output Capacity | 83 | +3 | |
Benchmarks | 0 | -67 | |
| Overall Result | 3 wins | of 6 | 3 wins |
28
days ranked higher
1
days
1
days ranked higher
OpenAI
Alibaba
Qwen3.5-Flash saves you $310.50/month
That's $3726.00/year compared to o4 Mini High at your current usage level of 100K calls/month.
| Metric | o4 Mini High | Qwen3.5-Flash | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 85 | 79 | o4 Mini High |
| Rank | #44 | #80 | o4 Mini High |
| Quality Rank | #44 | #80 | o4 Mini High |
| Adoption Rank | #44 | #80 | o4 Mini High |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 1000K | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Pricing | $1.10/$4.40/M | $0.07/$0.26/M | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 100 | 83 | o4 Mini High |
| Pricing | 4 | 0 | o4 Mini High |
| Context window size | 84 | 95 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Recency | 71 | 100 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
| Output Capacity | 83 | 80 | o4 Mini High |
| Benchmarks | -- | 67 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
Our composite score (0–100) combines six weighted signals: benchmark performance (25%), pricing efficiency (25%), context window size (15%), model recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and capability versatility (10%). Here's what the scores mean for these two models:
Scores 85/100 (rank #44), placing it in the top 85% of all 290 models tracked.
Scores 79/100 (rank #80), placing it in the top 73% of all 290 models tracked.
o4 Mini High has a 6-point advantage, which typically translates to noticeably better performance on complex reasoning, code generation, and multi-step tasks.
Qwen3.5-Flash offers 94% better value per quality point. At 1M tokens/day, you'd spend $4.88/month with Qwen3.5-Flash vs $82.50/month with o4 Mini High - a $77.63 monthly difference.
Both models have comparable response speeds. For most applications, the latency difference is negligible.
When latency matters most: Interactive chatbots, IDE code completion, real-time translation, and user-facing applications where response time directly impacts experience. For batch processing, background summarization, or offline analysis, latency is less critical.
Code generation & review
Higher benchmark score (0/100) indicates stronger performance on coding tasks like generating functions, debugging, and refactoring
Customer support chatbot
Faster response time (speed score 0/100) is critical for user-facing chat. Qwen3.5-Flash also offers lower per-token costs for high-volume support
Long document analysis
Larger context window (1000K tokens) can process longer documents, contracts, and research papers in a single pass
Batch data extraction
Lower output pricing ($0.26/M) reduces costs when processing thousands of records daily
Creative writing & content
Higher overall composite score (85/100) correlates with better nuance, coherence, and style in long-form content
Image understanding & OCR
Supports vision input - can analyze screenshots, diagrams, photos, and scanned documents directly
o4 Mini High has a moderate advantage with a 5.599999999999994-point lead in composite score. It wins on more signal dimensions, but Qwen3.5-Flash has specific strengths that could make it the better choice for certain workflows.
Best for Quality
o4 Mini High
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Cost
Qwen3.5-Flash
94% lower pricing; better value at scale
Best for Reliability
o4 Mini High
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
o4 Mini High
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
o4 Mini High
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
| Capability | o4 Mini High | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vision (Image Input) | ||
| Function Calling | ||
| Streaming | ||
| JSON Mode | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Web Searchdiffers | ||
| Image Output |
OpenAI
Alibaba
Qwen3.5-Flash saves you $6.83/month
That's 94% cheaper than o4 Mini High at 1,000 tokens/request and 100 requests/day.
Assumes 60% input / 40% output token ratio per request. Actual costs may vary based on your usage pattern.
| Parameter | o4 Mini High | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Context Window | 200K | 1M |
| Max Output Tokens | 100,000 | 65,536 |
| Open Source | No | No |
| Created | Apr 16, 2025 | Feb 25, 2026 |
o4 Mini High scores 85/100 (rank #44) compared to Qwen3.5-Flash's 79/100 (rank #80), giving it a 6-point advantage. o4 Mini High is the stronger overall choice, though Qwen3.5-Flash may excel in specific areas like cost efficiency.
o4 Mini High is ranked #44 and Qwen3.5-Flash is ranked #80 out of 290+ AI models. Rankings use a composite score combining benchmark performance (25%), pricing (25%), context window (15%), recency (15%), output capacity (10%), and versatility (10%). Scores update hourly.
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.26/M output tokens vs o4 Mini High's $4.40/M output tokens - 16.9x more expensive. Input token pricing: o4 Mini High at $1.10/M vs Qwen3.5-Flash at $0.07/M.
Qwen3.5-Flash has a larger context window of 1,000,000 tokens compared to o4 Mini High's 200,000 tokens. A larger context window means the model can process longer documents and conversations.