Compare / Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen3.5 397B A17B vs Llama 4 Maverick
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 23 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 4 Maverick? The short answer
- Llama 4 Maverick is cheaper: $0.42 against $1.29 per million tokens, 3.1 times less.
- Qwen3.5 397B A17B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 21.4 against 10.0.
- Qwen3.5 397B A17B writes faster: 90 tokens a second against 42.
- On our business benchmarks, Qwen3.5 397B A17B ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
At a glance
| Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Llama 4 Maverick | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.55 in · $3.50 out | $0.27 in · $0.85 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $1.29 | $0.42 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.88 (Alibaba) | $0.30 (DigitalOcean) |
| Intelligence Index | 21.4 | 10.0 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 90 | 42 |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,048,576 tokens |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 65 of 161 | 141 of 161 |
| Professional workReal tasks from banking, consulting and law, business documents and freelance projects | 48 of 51 | not measured |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 69 of 195 | 146 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 66 of 187 | 166 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 72 of 153 | not measured |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Qwen3.5 397B A17B | Llama 4 Maverick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,445 | 1,317 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,405 | 1,307 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,476 | 1,326 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,434 | 1,314 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,442 | 1,327 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,421 | 1,312 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score | 48.2 | 16.3 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 21.4 | 10.0 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 89.3% | 67.1% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 29.0% | 4.9% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 78.8% | 43.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 77.3% | 50.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Output speedtokens per second | 89.7 | 42.4 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | SciCode% of problems | 44.8% | 31.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks | 51.3% | 7.9% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks | 0.0% | 0.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 40.9% | 6.8% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Time to first answer tokenseconds | 1.57 | 0.64 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ-bench banking% of tasks | 13.4% | 3.7% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 95.6% | 17.8% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Requested-length error% off the requested word count | 23.0% | 13.0% |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Style adherencescore from 0 to 1 | 0.33 | 0.37 |
| UGI Leaderboardreported | Writing scorescore out of 100 | 50.1 | 24.0 |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5 397B A17B better than Llama 4 Maverick?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Qwen3.5 397B A17B ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 4 Maverick?
Llama 4 Maverick costs $0.42 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $1.29 for Qwen3.5 397B A17B.
Which is faster, Qwen3.5 397B A17B or Llama 4 Maverick?
Qwen3.5 397B A17B writes about 90 tokens a second on its usual API, against 42 for Llama 4 Maverick (Artificial Analysis).
Run Qwen3.5 397B A17B and Llama 4 Maverick on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.