OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning): The Ultimate Performance & Pricing Comparison

Deep dive into reasoning, benchmarks, and latency insights.

The Final Verdict in the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) Showdown

After a comprehensive analysis, OpenChat 3.5 (1210) emerges as the superior choice for users prioritizing raw intelligence and reasoning. However, Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) remains a highly competitive option, especially for scenarios demanding faster response times and cost-efficiency. This detailed OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) comparison will break down every critical metric to help you make the best decision.

Explore best-for scenarios•Let the AI Selector recommend next steps

Model Snapshot

Key decision metrics at a glance.

OpenChat 3.5 (1210)

Other

Reasoning: 6
Coding: 6
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 1
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.015
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: —

Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)

Other

Reasoning: 2
Coding: 6
Multimodal: 1
Long Context: 2
Blended Price / 1M tokens: $0.000
P95 Latency: 1000ms
Tokens per second: 90.713tokens/sec

Overall Capabilities

The capability radar provides a holistic view of the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) matchup. This chart illustrates each model's strengths and weaknesses at a glance, forming a cornerstone of our OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) analysis.

This radar chart visually maps the core capabilities (reasoning, coding, math proxy, multimodal, long context) of `OpenChat 3.5 (1210)` vs `Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)`.

Benchmark Breakdown

For a granular look, this chart directly compares scores across standardized benchmarks. In the critical MMLU Pro test, a key part of the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) debate, OpenChat 3.5 (1210) scores 60 against Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)'s 20. This data-driven approach is essential for any serious OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) comparison.

This grouped bar chart provides a side-by-side comparison for each benchmark metric.

Speed & Latency

Speed is a crucial factor in the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) decision for interactive applications. The metrics below highlight the trade-offs you should weigh before shipping to production.

Time to First Token

OpenChat 3.5 (1210)300ms

Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)300ms

Tokens per Second

OpenChat 3.5 (1210)41

Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)90.713

Head to the playground to validate these results yourself

The Economics of OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning)

Power is only one part of the equation. This OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) pricing analysis gives you a true sense of value.

Pricing Breakdown

Compare input and output pricing at a glance.

Real-World Cost Scenario

To process 1M input tokens and generate 250k output tokens, OpenChat 3.5 (1210) would cost $0.018, whereas Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) would cost $0.000. This practical calculation is vital for any developer considering the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) choice.

Review the complete pricing and packaging strategy

Which Model Wins the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) Battle for You?

Choose OpenChat 3.5 (1210) if...

You are working in a technical or scientific field requiring the highest accuracy.

Cost is a secondary concern to power in your OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) decision.

You need the most advanced reasoning capabilities available.

Choose Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) if...

You need a highly responsive model for user-facing applications.

Your budget is a primary consideration in the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) choice.

You are developing at scale where operational costs are critical.

Explore all Best picks Use the AI Selector for a tailored recommendation

Your Questions about the OpenChat 3.5 (1210) vs Qwen3 4B (Reasoning) Comparison

Review the full evaluation methodology · Read the latest analysis posts

Data source: https://artificialanalysis.ai/