The Right-Sized LLM Benchmark Cheapest LLM that's good enough.

Qwen 3.6 Flash at a glance

Good enough on 17/52 tasks at the 90% bar. Best value on 2 tasks. Best fit for: Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions.

Provider
Alibaba Cloud (DashScope)
Model name
qwen3.6-flash
Cost mode:
Qualifies on
17 / 52 tasks (at 90% bar)
Best value on
2 tasks

Cost vs quality across all tasks

0%25%50%75%100%78910Quality score (7–10)Cost-efficiency vs best value (1.0 = best value)Onboarding Subject Analysis — quality 8.48, 4.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionStructured Output Extraction — quality 8.99, 57.7x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionActivity Feed Blurb Generation — quality 7.94, 24.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSubstack Newsletter — quality 8.94, 19.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionInvestment Panel Voting — quality 8.38, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★S-1 TOC Extraction — quality 8.52, 5.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanguage Detection — quality 9.99, 66.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionExecutive Summary Generation — quality 7.36, 3.1x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Report Relevance Scoring — quality 8.42, this model IS the best-value good-enough option★Publication Title Generation — quality 8.29, 17.2x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionLanding Page Section Generation — quality 8.88, 5.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionTopic Cluster Naming — quality 8.31, 4.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionOnboarding Chapter Outline Generation — quality 9.61, 3.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionX Post Selection — quality 8.59, 32.9x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionSEC S-1 Chunk Analysis — quality 8.45, 3.6x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionClaim Refinement — quality 8.10, 13.8x the cost of the best-value good-enough optionImage Prompt Generation — quality 8.46, 16.3x the cost of the best-value good-enough option

within ~1.3× of the best-value model · 1.3–2× · >2× · ★ this model is the best-value pick on that task. Top-right = best quadrant. Only tasks where this model qualifies at the 90% bar are plotted.

Per-task breakdown

TaskCategoryQuality (% of best)ConfidenceOverpay
Investment Panel Voting ★Financial Analysis & Trading Decisions92%RANKEDbest value
Topic Report Relevance Scoring ★Relevance, Classification & Matching91%MEDIUMbest value
Executive Summary GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis93%HIGH3.1x
Onboarding Chapter Outline GenerationLong-form Content Generation98%RANKED3.3x
SEC S-1 Chunk AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions92%RANKED3.6x
Topic Cluster NamingTopic Organization & Clustering95%RANKED4.3x
Onboarding Subject AnalysisFinancial Analysis & Trading Decisions92%RANKED4.6x
S-1 TOC ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction91%RANKED5.2x
Landing Page Section GenerationLong-form Content Generation90%RANKED5.9x
Claim RefinementInfrastructure & Utility96%MEDIUM14x
Image Prompt GenerationInfrastructure & Utility92%RANKED16x
Publication Title GenerationContent Summarization & Synthesis92%RANKED17x
Substack NewsletterLong-form Content Generation97%RANKED19x
Activity Feed Blurb GenerationSocial & Promotional Content90%RANKED24x
X Post SelectionRelevance, Classification & Matching98%RANKED33x
Structured Output ExtractionStructured Data & Fact Extraction91%MEDIUM58x
Language DetectionRelevance, Classification & Matching99%RANKED66x

Overpay — how much more you pay by running this model instead of the best-value model that clears the quality bar on that task (marked ★). "16x" means you overpay 16× — the same output for 16× the best-value good-enough option; ★ means this model is that option (no overpayment). Confidence — how sure we are about the quality score (more judgments + more agreement = higher confidence): RANKED many independent judges scored this model's outputs and their agreement is very high (most confident) — HIGH many judges have scored it and they mostly agree (well-pinned) — MEDIUM enough judges have weighed in to publish, but they disagree more than we'd like (treat with a small grain of salt). LOW-confidence cells are hidden everywhere on the site. See the methodology for the exact thresholds.