Side-by-side comparison of pricing, 12 benchmarks, and generation speed.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) | Nemotron 3.5 Lightning |
|---|---|---|
| Input ($/M tokens) | $0.14 | $0.06 |
| Output ($/M tokens) | $0.2 | $0.2 |
Verdict. Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) wins the overall benchmark matchup 2–0 across 2 overlapping categories, but raw benchmark score is only one input to the decision.
Pricing. Both models sit in the budget bracket for output-token pricing. At 1.0× the per-million-token cost, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is meaningfully cheaper if your traffic is output-heavy (long completions, document generation, agent loops). Nemotron 3.5 Lightning makes more sense when output volume is low and absolute reasoning quality justifies the premium.
Strengths. Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is strongest on Coding Index (28.7), Intelligence Index (13.7). Nemotron 3.5 Lightning leads on Coding Index (26.8), Intelligence Index (13.6).
Speed. On throughput, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning generates tokens at 302 tok/s versus 90 tok/s — about 70% faster. On time-to-first-token, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning responds in 570ms vs 2130ms, which matters most for chat-style UIs.
Provider. Alibaba and NVIDIA sell to overlapping but distinct developer audiences: Alibaba tends to ship frontier reasoning models with premium positioning, while NVIDIA often prices more aggressively. Your existing vendor relationships, billing, and SLA preferences may matter as much as the raw numbers above.
Workload cost. Workload scenarios (per million requests at 30M input + 15M output tokens): Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) costs $7.20 ($86/year); Nemotron 3.5 Lightning costs $4.80 ($58/year). At a smaller 5M-input/2M-output scale (single-developer tool or prototype): Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) ≈ $1.10/run, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning ≈ $0.70/run. At agent/realtime scale (200M input / 100M output per million requests): Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) ≈ $48/run, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning ≈ $32/run. Nemotron 3.5 Lightning becomes more attractive at higher volume — the absolute per-token pricing difference compounds when you ship at scale.
Recommendation. Both models have legitimate use cases — the right answer depends on whether you are optimizing for benchmark ceiling, latency, or unit cost. Start with the cheaper / faster model, evaluate against your specific task, and only switch if the upgrade shows a meaningful lift.
Head-to-head deltas
Data from Artificial Analysis API — 12 benchmarks
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning is cheaper overall. Its blended price (3:1 input/output ratio) is $0.10/M tokens vs $0.15/M for Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning).
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) wins 2 out of 12 benchmarks compared to 0 for Nemotron 3.5 Lightning. See the detailed benchmark chart above for per-category results.
Nemotron 3.5 Lightning generates tokens faster at 302 tok/s vs 90 tok/s. However, Nemotron 3.5 Lightning has lower time-to-first-token (0.57s vs 2.13s).
Choose based on your priorities: Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for lower cost, Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) for stronger benchmark performance, and Nemotron 3.5 Lightning for faster generation. For latency-sensitive apps, check the TTFT comparison above.