# Darwin-36B-Opus vs Qwen3.5-9B (slim)

> Darwin-36B-Opus and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other for open-weight models you run yourself, 61 and 60.5 out of 100. Prices, MCP, x402, uptime and agent notes side by side.

- Full: https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-qwen3-5-9b.md (~5,950 tokens) · this version ~380 tokens · JSON https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-qwen3-5-9b.json · canonical https://www.anchorterminal.com/compare/darwin-36b-opus-vs-qwen3-5-9b
- Index: https://www.anchorterminal.com/llms.txt · API: https://www.anchorterminal.com/api/v1/index.json · MCP: https://www.anchorterminal.com/mcp · Updated: 2026-10-21
- Licence: CC BY 4.0, credit Anchor Terminal and link this page (https://www.anchorterminal.com/terms/#data)

Darwin-36B-Opus and Qwen3.5-9B score within a point of each other on agent readiness, 61 (C) and 60.5 (C). Qwen3.5-9B leads on reach. Both do open-weight models you run yourself.

- Darwin-36B-Opus: C 61, rank #37 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/darwin-36b-opus.min.md
- Qwen3.5-9B: C 60.5, rank #53 of 100 open-weight models · https://www.anchorterminal.com/tools/qwen3-5-9b.min.md
- Darwin-36B-Opus, good for Reasoning-heavy text tasks on a 32 GB machine or a single 80 GB GPU, where a disclosed training method isn't required Ahead on Documentation and upkeep, 51 against 34.
- Qwen3.5-9B, good for Agents that want a small multimodal tool-calling cousin on a laptop or a 16 GB GPU, under a plain licence Ahead on Reach, 85 against 80.

| Category | Darwin-36B-Opus | Qwen3.5-9B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Capability (35%) | pending | pending |
| Reach (25%) | 80 | 85 |
| Risk (20%) | 55 | 55 |
| Agent interface (10%) | 70 | 70 |
| Documentation and upkeep (10%) | 51 | 34 |

| Fact (where they differ) | Darwin-36B-Opus | Qwen3.5-9B |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Vendor | FINAL-Bench (VIDRAFT) | Alibaba (Qwen team) |
| Last release | 2026-04-23 | 2026-03-02 |