Fronset Benchmark

Qwen 3.5 Flash (archived)

Provider
Alibaba Cloud (DashScope)
Model name
qwen3.5-flash
Last benchmarked
Qualified on
14 / 51 tasks (at the 90% bar)
Best value on
1 tasks

Good enough on 14/51 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 1 task. Best fit for: Structured Data & Fact Extraction. Doesn't qualify on any: Long-form Content Generation, Content Summarization & Synthesis.

Cost vs quality across all tasks, as of 15 August 2026

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Engagement Triage — quality 8.32, 6.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionClaim Extraction — quality 7.04, 3.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionImage Prompt Generation — quality 8.43, 4.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionX Post Selection — quality 8.52, 2.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSEC S-1 Chunk Analysis — quality 8.42, 3.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Detection — quality 9.99, 16.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionResearch Query Generation — quality 8.05, 5.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionS-1 TOC Extraction — quality 8.92, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Claim Refinement — quality 7.94, 4.0x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTranslation — quality 8.61, 5.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionPrompt Adaptation — quality 8.11, 4.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSocial Post Promotion — quality 8.47, 6.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionActivity Feed Blurb Generation — quality 8.33, 12.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic-to-Section Assignment — quality 8.21, 3.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown, as of 15 August 2026

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
S-1 TOC Extraction ★Structured Data & Fact Extraction95%MEDIUMbest value
X Post SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching96%RANKED2.6x
Topic-to-Section AssignmentTopic Organization & Clustering93%HIGH3.2x
SEC S-1 Chunk AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions92%HIGH3.6x
Claim ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction91%HIGH3.7x
Claim RefinementInfrastructure & Utility94%HIGH4x
Prompt AdaptationInfrastructure & Utility91%RANKED4.3x
Image Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility90%RANKED4.6x
Research Query GenerationInfrastructure & Utility94%MEDIUM5.1x
TranslationInfrastructure & Utility92%HIGH5.9x
Social Post PromotionSocial & Promotional Content95%RANKED6.7x
Engagement TriageRelevance, Classification & Matching90%HIGH6.9x
Activity Feed Blurb GenerationSocial & Promotional Content95%HIGH12x
Language DetectionRelevance, Classification & Matching99%RANKED16x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.