The AI arena is free today

Open Superagent

Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 24.3. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is 1.6x cheaper per token.

Reflection AI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026

Which is better?

Beam 1.0 leads the overall LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 24.3, ranking #46 overall.

On price, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is roughly 1.6x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Beam 1.0 also accepts a larger context window (1,048,576 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.

Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.

Choose Beam 1.0

  • overall performance matters — it scores 44.6 and ranks #46 on LLM Stats
  • your work emphasizes reasoning and agents — it leads those capability indexes
  • you process long inputs — it offers a 1,048,576 token context window
  • you want the most recent training data — it shipped Oct 2026

Choose Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

  • cost matters — it's about 1.6x cheaper per token

At a glance

The differences that matter most.

Beam 1.0
Reflection AI
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Core performance indexes
LLM Stats Score
44.6
#46
24.3
#186
Reasoning
45.5
#37
22.1
#195
Agents
28.8
#53
12.5
#124
Cost, coverage & limits
Benchmark wins
—
—
Input price
$0.40 / M
$0.20 / M
Output price
$1.20 / M
$0.88 / M
Context window
1,048,576
262,144

Capability indexes

Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks

3 shared
Index
Beam 1.0
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Math
35.1#45
23.7#134
Vision
15.9#105
17.8#100
Long context
29.5#5
14.3#55
Conservative TrueSkill rating · higher is betterHow scores work

Individual benchmarks

22 reported for Beam 1.0 · 50 for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

No common benchmarks found

Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instructdon't have any common benchmark datasets to compare. They may have been evaluated on different testing suites.

Human preference

Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct costs less

For input processing, Beam 1.0 ($0.40/1M tokens) is 2.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, Beam 1.0 ($1.20/1M tokens) is 1.4x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct ($0.88/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Beam 1.0 is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com
Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
Input tokens$0.40
Output tokens$1.20
Best providerTogether
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Input tokens$0.20
Output tokens$0.88
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

265.3B diff

Beam 1.0 has 265.3B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct, making it 112.4% larger.

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
501.3Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
236.0Bparameters
501.3B
Beam 1.0
236.0B
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Beam 1.0 accepts 1,048,576 input tokens compared to Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Beam 1.0 is limited to 131,072 tokens.

Reflection AI
Beam 1.0
Input1,048,576 tokens
Output131,072 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Thu Oct 22 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input capabilities

Documented input modalities across available providers

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports multimodal inputs, whereas Beam 1.0 does not.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

Beam 1.0

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.

Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.

Beam 1.0

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Beam 1.0 was released on 2026-10-16, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct was released on 2025-09-22.

Beam 1.0 is 13 months newer than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct.

Beam 1.0

Oct 16, 2026

3 days ago

1.1yr newer
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Sep 22, 2025

1.1 years ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Beam 1.0 has a documented knowledge cutoff of 2026-06-30, while Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct's cutoff date is not specified.

We can confirm Beam 1.0's training data extends to 2026-06-30, but cannot make a direct comparison without Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct's cutoff date.

Beam 1.0

Jun 2026

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

—

Provider Availability

Beam 1.0 is available from Together, Reflection AI. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Novita.

Beam 1.0

together logo
Together
Input Price:Input: $0.40/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.20/1M
reflection logo
Unknown Organization

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.88/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Beam 1.0
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Open in Playground

FAQ

Common questions about Beam 1.0 vs Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct.

Which is better, Beam 1.0 or Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 leads the LLM Stats Score 44.6 to 24.3. Beam 1.0 is made by Reflection AI and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their capability indexes, individual benchmarks, pricing, and limits above.

How does Beam 1.0 compare to Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct in benchmarks?

Beam 1.0 scores AIME 2026: 97.7%, GPQA: 90.6%, LiveCodeBench: 88.3%, SWE-Bench Verified: 81.6%, MCP Atlas: 80.8%. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct scores DocVQAtest: 97.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.4%, MMLU-Redux: 92.2%, OCRBench: 92.0%, MMBench-V1.1: 89.9%.

Is Beam 1.0 cheaper than Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is 2.0x cheaper for input tokens. Beam 1.0 costs $0.40/M input and $1.20/M output via together. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct costs $0.20/M input and $0.88/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 supports 1.0M tokens and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports 262K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Key differences include LLM Stats Score (44.6 vs 24.3), context window (1.0M vs 262K), input pricing ($0.40 vs $0.20/M), multimodal support (no vs yes). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes Beam 1.0 and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct?

Beam 1.0 is developed by Reflection AI and Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.

Related comparisons