The AI arena is free today

Open Playground

Model Comparison

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B ThinkingWhich is better in 2026?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is 1.8x cheaper per token.

Verdict: Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking — which is better?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking (by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team) are two of the AI models people compare most. Here is how they stack up on benchmarks, price and capabilities, and which one to pick in 2026.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct outperforms in 40 benchmarks (AI2D, AIME 2025, Arena-Hard v2, BFCL-v3, BLINK, CC-OCR, CharadesSTA, CharXiv-R, Creative Writing v3, DocVQAtest, ERQA, HMMT25, IFEval, Include, InfoVQAtest, LiveBench 20241125, LiveCodeBench v6, LVBench, MathVision, MathVista-Mini, MMBench-V1.1, MMLU, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-ProX, MMLU-Redux, MM-MT-Bench, MMMU-Pro, MMStar, Multi-IF, OCRBench, OCRBench-V2 (en), OCRBench-V2 (zh), ODinW, OSWorld, RealWorldQA, ScreenSpot, ScreenSpot Pro, SuperGPQA, VideoMMMU, WritingBench), while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is better at 2 benchmarks (Hallusion Bench, MuirBench). Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

On price, Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is roughly 1.8x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.

Choose Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct if…

  • you want the strongest raw capability — it leads on 40 of 42 shared benchmarks

Choose Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking if…

  • cost matters — it's about 1.8x cheaper per token

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

42 benchmarks

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct outperforms in 40 benchmarks (AI2D, AIME 2025, Arena-Hard v2, BFCL-v3, BLINK, CC-OCR, CharadesSTA, CharXiv-R, Creative Writing v3, DocVQAtest, ERQA, HMMT25, IFEval, Include, InfoVQAtest, LiveBench 20241125, LiveCodeBench v6, LVBench, MathVision, MathVista-Mini, MMBench-V1.1, MMLU, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-ProX, MMLU-Redux, MM-MT-Bench, MMMU-Pro, MMStar, Multi-IF, OCRBench, OCRBench-V2 (en), OCRBench-V2 (zh), ODinW, OSWorld, RealWorldQA, ScreenSpot, ScreenSpot Pro, SuperGPQA, VideoMMMU, WritingBench), while Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is better at 2 benchmarks (Hallusion Bench, MuirBench).

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Fri Aug 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking costs less

For input processing, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct ($0.30/1M tokens) is 3.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($0.10/1M tokens).

For output processing, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct ($1.49/1M tokens) is 1.5x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking ($1.00/1M tokens).

In conclusion, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.*

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

Lowest available price from all providers
Fri Aug 07 2026 • llm-stats.com
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Input tokens$0.30
Output tokens$1.49
Best providerDeepinfra
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Input tokens$0.10
Output tokens$1.00
Best providerDeepinfra
Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue

Model Size

Parameter count comparison

232.0B diff

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct has 232.0B more parameters than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking, making it 5800.0% larger.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
236.0Bparameters
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
4.0Bparameters
236.0B
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
4.0B
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

Both models have the same input context window of 262,144 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 262,144 tokens.

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Input262,144 tokens
Output262,144 tokens
Fri Aug 07 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Both Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking support multimodal inputs.

They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Text
Images
Audio
Video

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

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.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

Both models were released on 2025-09-22.

They likely represent similar generations of model development.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

Sep 22, 2025

10 months ago

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

10 months ago

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is available from DeepInfra.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.49/1M
novita logo
Novita
Input Price:Input: $0.30/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.50/1M

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

deepinfra logo
Deepinfra
Input Price:Input: $0.10/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M
* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion

Key Takeaways

Higher AI2D score (89.7% vs 84.9%)
Higher AIME 2025 score (74.7% vs 74.5%)
Higher Arena-Hard v2 score (77.4% vs 36.8%)
Higher BFCL-v3 score (67.7% vs 67.3%)
Higher BLINK score (70.7% vs 63.4%)
Higher CC-OCR score (82.2% vs 73.8%)
Higher CharadesSTA score (64.8% vs 59.0%)
Higher CharXiv-R score (62.1% vs 50.3%)
Higher Creative Writing v3 score (86.5% vs 76.1%)
Higher DocVQAtest score (97.1% vs 94.2%)
Higher ERQA score (51.3% vs 47.3%)
Higher HMMT25 score (57.4% vs 53.1%)
Higher IFEval score (87.8% vs 82.6%)
Higher Include score (80.0% vs 64.6%)
Higher InfoVQAtest score (89.2% vs 83.0%)
Higher LiveBench 20241125 score (74.8% vs 68.4%)
Higher LiveCodeBench v6 score (54.3% vs 51.3%)
Higher LVBench score (67.7% vs 53.5%)
Higher MathVision score (66.5% vs 60.0%)
Higher MathVista-Mini score (84.9% vs 79.5%)
Higher MMBench-V1.1 score (89.9% vs 86.7%)
Higher MMLU score (88.8% vs 81.5%)
Higher MMLU-Pro score (81.8% vs 73.6%)
Higher MMLU-ProX score (77.8% vs 65.0%)
Higher MMLU-Redux score (92.2% vs 86.0%)
Higher MM-MT-Bench score (8.5% vs 7.7%)
Higher MMMU-Pro score (68.1% vs 57.0%)
Higher MMStar score (78.4% vs 73.2%)
Higher Multi-IF score (76.3% vs 73.6%)
Higher OCRBench score (92.0% vs 80.8%)
Higher OCRBench-V2 (en) score (67.1% vs 61.8%)
Higher OCRBench-V2 (zh) score (61.8% vs 55.8%)
Higher ODinW score (48.6% vs 39.4%)
Higher OSWorld score (66.7% vs 31.4%)
Higher RealWorldQA score (79.3% vs 73.2%)
Higher ScreenSpot score (95.4% vs 92.9%)
Higher ScreenSpot Pro score (62.0% vs 49.2%)
Higher SuperGPQA score (60.4% vs 46.8%)
Higher VideoMMMU score (74.7% vs 69.4%)
Higher WritingBench score (85.5% vs 84.0%)
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Less expensive input tokens
Less expensive output tokens
Higher Hallusion Bench score (64.1% vs 63.2%)
Higher MuirBench score (75.0% vs 72.8%)

Detailed Comparison

Interactive Arena

Judge for yourself.

Run your own prompts against Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
✓ Preferred
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking
Open in Playground
AI Model Comparison Table
Feature
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team
Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct vs Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking.

Which is better, Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct or Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct compare to Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking in benchmarks?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct scores DocVQAtest: 97.1%, ScreenSpot: 95.4%, MMLU-Redux: 92.2%, OCRBench: 92.0%, MMBench-V1.1: 89.9%. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 94.2%, ScreenSpot: 92.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 86.7%, MMLU-Redux: 86.0%, AI2D: 84.9%.

Is Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct cheaper than Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking is 3.0x cheaper for input tokens. Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct costs $0.30/M input and $1.49/M output via deepinfra. Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking costs $0.10/M input and $1.00/M output via deepinfra.

What are the context window sizes for Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct supports 262K tokens and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking 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 Qwen3 VL 235B A22B Instruct and Qwen3 VL 4B Thinking?

Key differences include input pricing ($0.30 vs $0.10/M). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.