Fugu Ultra vs Qwen3.5-9B
Fugu Ultra (2026) and Qwen3.5-9B (2026) are frontier reasoning models from Sakana AI and Alibaba. Fugu Ultra ships a 1m-token context window, while Qwen3.5-9B ships a 262k-token context window. On Google-Proof Q&A, Fugu Ultra leads by 13.8 pts. On pricing, Fugu Ultra ranges from $5 to $10/1M input tokens by tier; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10/1M input tokens. This comparison covers specs, pricing, API access, capabilities, benchmarks, input and output token costs, and production fit for coding and agent workloads.
Fugu Ultra is safer overall; choose Qwen3.5-9B when vision-heavy evaluation matters.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Fugu Ultra | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | multimodal apps, tool-calling agents, and provider-routed production |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 1m | 262k |
| Cheapest output | $30/1M tokens | $0.15/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 2 tracked | 3 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | Google-Proof Q&A leader | 2 shared |
Decision tradeoffs
- Fugu Ultra holds a shared-benchmark lead on Google-Proof Q&A, ahead by 13.8 points.
- Fugu Ultra has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Fugu Ultra uniquely exposes Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Fugu Ultra for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Qwen3.5-9B has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $0.15/1M tokens.
- Qwen3.5-9B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.5-9B for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Fugu Ultra
$11,500
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Sakana AI <=272K tokens
Qwen3.5-9B
$118
Cheapest tracked route/tier: Together AI
Estimated monthly gap: $11,383. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Fugu Ultra and Qwen3.5-9B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Qwen3.5-9B is $29.85/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Check replacement coverage for Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Qwen3.5-9B and Fugu Ultra; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Fugu Ultra is $29.85/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Fugu Ultra adds Reasoning in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-06-22 | 2026-03-02 |
| Context window | 1m | 262k |
| Parameters | — | 9B |
| Architecture | Composition of Experts | Decoder Only |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0OSI-approved |
| Openness | Proprietary | Open source |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: conditional | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Fugu Ultra | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price |
| $0.10/1M tokens |
| Output price |
| $0.15/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Fugu Ultra | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | Yes |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Fugu Ultra | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Google-Proof Q&A | 95.5 | 81.7 |
| LiveCodeBench | 93.2 | 65.6 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, Google-Proof Q&A has Fugu Ultra at 95.5 and Qwen3.5-9B at 81.7, with Fugu Ultra ahead by 13.8 points; LiveCodeBench has Fugu Ultra at 93.2 and Qwen3.5-9B at 65.6, with Fugu Ultra ahead by 27.6 points. The largest visible gap is 27.6 points on LiveCodeBench, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on reasoning mode: Fugu Ultra. Both models share vision, multimodal input, function calling, and tool use, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Fugu Ultra lists tiered pricing: <=272K tokens is $5/1M input and $30/1M output; >272K tokens is $10/1M input and $45/1M output, while Qwen3.5-9B lists $0.10/1M input and $0.15/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Qwen3.5-9B lower by about $12.38 per million blended tokens. For tiered rows, this cheapest-track view can understate interactive or fast-lane spend, so compare the tier you will actually use. Availability is 2 providers versus 3, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Fugu Ultra when reasoning depth and larger context windows are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.5-9B when vision-heavy evaluation, lower input-token cost, and broader provider choice are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Fugu Ultra or Qwen3.5-9B?
Fugu Ultra supports 1m tokens, while Qwen3.5-9B supports 262k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Ultra or Qwen3.5-9B?
Fugu Ultra lists tiered pricing: <=272K tokens is $5/1M input and $30/1M output; >272K tokens is $10/1M input and $45/1M output. Qwen3.5-9B lists $0.10/1M input and $0.15/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. Compare the tier you will actually use; cheap async pricing can overstate savings for interactive workflows. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Fugu Ultra or Qwen3.5-9B open source?
Fugu Ultra is listed under Proprietary. Qwen3.5-9B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Fugu Ultra or Qwen3.5-9B?
Both Fugu Ultra and Qwen3.5-9B expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Fugu Ultra or Qwen3.5-9B?
Both Fugu Ultra and Qwen3.5-9B expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Where can I run Fugu Ultra and Qwen3.5-9B?
Fugu Ultra is available on Sakana AI and Vercel AI Gateway. Qwen3.5-9B is available on Together AI, OpenRouter, and Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-06-22. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.