Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Solar Pro4
Wins 2 of 6 areas
Coding · Long documents
Wins 3 of 6 areas
Agents · Reasoning · Math
Solar Pro4 wins more areas, narrowly.Qwen3.5 397B A17B is better at coding.
Scores updated · 21 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own12Solar Pro42 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking01Solar Pro41 of 3 tests · 2 ties
- MathCompetition and research-level math01Solar Pro41 of 1 test
- CodingWriting and fixing software21Qwen3.5 397B A17B2 of 4 tests · 1 tie
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Qwen3.5 397B A17B1 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Math and long documents rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Solar Pro4 costs 64% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The three tests each model wins by the widest margin. Scores are out of 100.
Where Solar Pro4 pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+64.5points ahead
- Real work tasks from 44 professionsGDPVal+15.7points ahead
- Customer-service tasks in a simulated bankτ-Bench V3 · Banking+9.9points ahead
Where Qwen3.5 397B A17B pulls ahead
- Finds hard-to-locate facts by browsing the webBrowseComp+19.8points ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+11.9points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+5.8points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 21 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.5 397B A17B
- Terminal-Bench 2.1Solar Pro4 by 651.357.3+6
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.5 397B A17B by 5.876.470.6+5.8
- LMArena · WebDevQwen3.5 397B A17B by 29 rating points14001371+29 rating
- SciCodetie44.844.6tie
AgentsSolar Pro4
- BrowseCompQwen3.5 397B A17B by 19.86949.2+19.8
- GDPValSolar Pro4 by 15.714.830.5+15.7
- τ-Bench V3 · BankingSolar Pro4 by 9.913.423.3+9.9
- Terminal-Bench 4.0tie00.5tie
ReasoningSolar Pro4
- CritPtSolar Pro4 by 3.71.75.4+3.7
- GPQA Diamondtie89.389.1tie
- Humanity's Last Examtie2929.2tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationSolar Pro4 by 64.511.175.6+64.5
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.5 397B A17B by 11.930.818.9+11.9
Other results6 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- AA-OmniscienceSolar Pro4 by 29.9-30.8-0.8+29.9
- AA Agentic IndexSolar Pro4 by 2310.633.6+23
- AA IntelligenceSolar Pro4 by 9.818.428.2+9.8
- τ³-Bench BankingSolar Pro4 by 9.613.423+9.6
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexSolar Pro4 by 4.548.252.7+4.5
- MMLU-ProQwen3.5 397B A17B by 1.587.886.3+1.5
Questions people ask
Which is better, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Solar Pro4?
Solar Pro4 wins three of the six areas where both have results: agents, reasoning and math. Qwen3.5 397B A17B wins coding and long documents. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.5 397B A17B. It wins 2 of the 4 coding tests both models report; Solar Pro4 wins 1, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
Qwen3.5 397B A17B costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Solar Pro4 costs $0.30 and $1.20. That makes Solar Pro4 about 64% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 21 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 15 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 6 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.