Pick Fugu Ultra v2.0 for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark or claims to outperform flagship models like gpt-6 astra and claude fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost or runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24gb consumer gpu. Choose Qwen3.6 35B A3B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Fugu Ultra v2.0 if you want a managed API.
Fugu Ultra v2.0 (Sakana AI) and Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Alibaba) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Ultra v2.0 is sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Qwen3.6 35B A3B is a sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences
Cost model: Qwen3.6 35B A3B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
Context window: Fugu Ultra v2.0 holds 3.8× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
Recency: Fugu Ultra v2.0 is the newer model by about 5 months (released September 10, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Specifications
Spec
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Provider
Sakana AI (Global)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 10, 2026
April 16, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$30 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
73.4%
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — Qwen3.6 35B A3B is comparatively weak here — loses to its smaller dense sibling Qwen3.6 27B on every coding benchmark, despite more total parameters
Claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
1M-token context window: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Qwen3.6 35B A3B's 256K in a single prompt.
Extreme sparsity — only 3B of 35B parameters active per token, giving near-3B inference cost: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — Fugu Ultra v2.0 is comparatively weak here — pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens
Runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24GB consumer GPU: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — Fugu Ultra v2.0 is comparatively weak here — not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically
Apache 2.0 weights with a 256K native context, extensible to about 1M via YaRN: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — A sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware — and its weights are open while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.
Lowest cost at scale: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Fugu Ultra v2.0's $5/$30 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Qwen3.6 35B A3B's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Fugu Ultra v2.0, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark: Fugu Ultra v2.0 — It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost: Qwen3.6 35B A3B — That is its strongest area.
Fugu Ultra v2.0: where it fits
Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark, claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them, and 1M-token context window.
Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically, pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens, and benchmark comparisons against GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 are Sakana's own self-reported figures, not independently verified head-to-head scores. At $5 in / $30 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B: where it fits
A sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware. Released April 16, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for extreme sparsity — only 3B of 35B parameters active per token, giving near-3B inference cost, runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24GB consumer GPU, apache 2.0 weights with a 256K native context, extensible to about 1M via YaRN, and preserves its reasoning across turns, which cuts the overhead of agentic loops.
Its trade-offs: loses to its smaller dense sibling Qwen3.6 27B on every coding benchmark, despite more total parameters, its SWE-Bench score comes from Alibaba's internal scaffold rather than the standard public harness, and all 35B parameters must stay resident in VRAM even though only 3B compute per token. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Qwen3.6 35B A3B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Fugu Ultra v2.0 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Frequently asked questions
Is Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Fugu Ultra v2.0, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Ultra v2.0 leans toward sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark while Qwen3.6 35B A3B leans toward extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu Ultra v2.0 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Ultra v2.0, Qwen3.6 35B A3B and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Fugu Ultra v2.0 — released September 10, 2026, about 5 months after Qwen3.6 35B A3B.
Fugu Ultra v2.0 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Sakana AI · Global | Alibaba · China · Updated June 2026
Quick verdict
Pick Fugu Ultra v2.0 for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark or claims to outperform flagship models like gpt-6 astra and claude fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them. Pick Qwen3.6 35B A3B for extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost or runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24gb consumer gpu. Choose Qwen3.6 35B A3B if you need self-hosting or data privacy; Fugu Ultra v2.0 if you want a managed API.
Fugu Ultra v2.0 (Sakana AI) and Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Alibaba) are two of the models people most often weigh against each other in 2026. Fugu Ultra v2.0 is sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Qwen3.6 35B A3B is a sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware. They diverge most on price, context window and open vs. closed weights — each quantified below from the models' real specs.
Key differences at a glance
▸Cost model: Qwen3.6 35B A3B ships open weights you can self-host (hardware cost only, no per-token fee), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 per 1M tokens. Your choice depends on whether you want zero marginal cost at the price of running infrastructure.
▸Context window: Fugu Ultra v2.0 holds 3.8× more — 1M tokens (~1,500 pages) vs 256K (~393 pages). But effective recall usually fades long before the advertised ceiling, so the bigger number only helps if the model reasons over it.
▸Recency: Fugu Ultra v2.0 is the newer model by about 5 months (released September 10, 2026), usually meaning fresher training data and capabilities.
Side-by-side specs
Spec
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Provider
Sakana AI (Global)
Alibaba (China)
Released
September 10, 2026
April 16, 2026
Context window
1M tokens (~1,500 pages)
256K (~393 pages)
Price (in/out)
$5/$30 per 1M tokens
Open weight (self-host / free)
Open weight?
No — API only
Yes — self-hostable
Modalities
text
text, image, code
SWE-Bench Verified
Not published
73.4%
MRCR v2 @ 1M
Not published
Not published
Who wins what
Sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Qwen3.6 35B A3B is comparatively weak here — loses to its smaller dense sibling Qwen3.6 27B on every coding benchmark, despite more total parameters
Claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens — and it carries the larger 1M tokens context.
1M-token context window
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Its 1M tokens window holds about 3.8× more than Qwen3.6 35B A3B's 256K in a single prompt.
Extreme sparsity — only 3B of 35B parameters active per token, giving near-3B inference cost
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Fugu Ultra v2.0 is comparatively weak here — pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens
Runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24GB consumer GPU
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Fugu Ultra v2.0 is comparatively weak here — not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically
Apache 2.0 weights with a 256K native context, extensible to about 1M via YaRN
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
A sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware — and its weights are open while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.
Lowest cost at scale
Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Its weights are open, so at volume you pay for your own hardware instead of Fugu Ultra v2.0's $5/$30 per 1M tokens.
Largest single-prompt input
Fugu Ultra v2.0
Its 1M tokens window is about 3.8× larger than Qwen3.6 35B A3B's 256K, fitting roughly 1,500 pages in one prompt.
Which should you pick?
A cost-sensitive startup shipping high volume
→ Qwen3.6 35B A3B
At Open weight (self-host / free) it undercuts Fugu Ultra v2.0, and on millions of tokens that margin decides the monthly bill.
Someone analysing very long documents or codebases
→ Fugu Ultra v2.0
Larger 1M tokens window fits more in one prompt.
A team with data-privacy or self-hosting needs
→ Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Open weights let you run it on your own hardware; Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-only.
Anyone whose priority is sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark
→ Fugu Ultra v2.0
It is specifically built for that.
Anyone whose priority is extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost
→ Qwen3.6 35B A3B
That is its strongest area.
Fugu Ultra v2.0: where it fits
Sakana AI's flagship multi-agent orchestration model, claiming best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 self-reported benchmarks against monolithic frontier models — $5/$30 per million tokens. Released September 10, 2026 by Sakana AI, it is built for sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the DeepSWE coding-repair benchmark, claims to outperform flagship models like GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 despite its underlying orchestration pool reportedly excluding both of them, and 1M-token context window.
Its trade-offs are real: not a single trained model — Sakana describes Fugu as "a Multi-Agent System, Delivered as One Model" that dynamically routes tasks across a pool of other models, so head-to-head benchmark framing against monolithic frontier models should be read skeptically, pricing rises to roughly $10/$45 per million tokens for prompts above 272K tokens, and benchmark comparisons against GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 are Sakana's own self-reported figures, not independently verified head-to-head scores. At $5 in / $30 out per million tokens, it sits in the premium price band.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B: where it fits
A sparse 35B mixture-of-experts running on 3B active parameters — strong agentic coding at near-3B cost on consumer hardware. Released April 16, 2026 by Alibaba, it is built for extreme sparsity — only 3B of 35B parameters active per token, giving near-3B inference cost, runs at roughly 120 tokens per second on a single 24GB consumer GPU, apache 2.0 weights with a 256K native context, extensible to about 1M via YaRN, and preserves its reasoning across turns, which cuts the overhead of agentic loops.
Its trade-offs: loses to its smaller dense sibling Qwen3.6 27B on every coding benchmark, despite more total parameters, its SWE-Bench score comes from Alibaba's internal scaffold rather than the standard public harness, and all 35B parameters must stay resident in VRAM even though only 3B compute per token. As an open-weight model, its running cost is your own hardware rather than a per-token fee.
The bottom line for this matchup
The defining split here is open vs. closed. Qwen3.6 35B A3B gives you weights you control — self-host it, fine-tune it, keep data in-house, pay only for hardware. Fugu Ultra v2.0 gives you a managed, always-updated API with no infrastructure to run. Teams with GPUs, privacy requirements, or huge volume often favour the open model; teams that want zero ops and the latest capabilities favour the closed one. Capability is close enough that this operational question, not the benchmark, usually decides it.
Want both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B without two subscriptions? LumiChats gives you these plus 40+ models under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day) — draft with one, cross-check with the other.
Is Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B better for coding?
Public SWE-Bench figures are not available for Fugu Ultra v2.0, so the honest test is your own repository — run an identical real bug through both. By design, Fugu Ultra v2.0 leans toward sakana's own evaluation reports best-or-joint-best results on 5 of 8 benchmarks tested, including a 74.3 on the deepswe coding-repair benchmark while Qwen3.6 35B A3B leans toward extreme sparsity — only 3b of 35b parameters active per token, giving near-3b inference cost, and that positioning usually predicts which feels better on your codebase.
Which is cheaper, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B is open-weight, so self-hosting means no per-token fee (you pay for hardware instead), while Fugu Ultra v2.0 is API-metered at $5/$30 per 1M tokens. For most teams without GPUs, the API model is cheaper to start; at very high volume, self-hosting can win.
Which has the bigger context window?
Fugu Ultra v2.0 — 1M tokens vs 256K, about 3.8× larger. Useful only if the model actually reasons over the full window, which not all do.
Can I use both Fugu Ultra v2.0 and Qwen3.6 35B A3B together?
Yes — a multi-model platform like LumiChats gives you Fugu Ultra v2.0, Qwen3.6 35B A3B and 40+ others under one ₹69/day pass (about $1/day), so you can draft with one and cross-check with the other instead of buying two subscriptions.
Which is newer, Fugu Ultra v2.0 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Fugu Ultra v2.0 — released September 10, 2026, about 5 months after Qwen3.6 35B A3B.
Specifications and benchmarks reflect publicly reported figures as of June 2026 and may change as providers release updates. Always verify on your own workload.