Model comparison

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview Amazon

33.4

Rank #244 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 22.4.

Side by side

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Nova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAmazonAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.442.5
Released2025-12-022026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked332

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Nova 2.0 Pro Preview leads

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 40.8 (#133), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1244
SciCode42.7%—
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 21.9 (#136), Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
GDP.pdf2%—
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: 22.4 (#194), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
CritPt0%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1403
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1407

Multilingual Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1385
LMArena Chinese—1446
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1390
LMArena Japanese—1368
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Russian—1379
LMArena Spanish—1400

Instruction Following Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkNova 2.0 Pro PreviewQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Nova 2.0 Pro Preview or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Nova 2.0 Pro Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.8 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Nova 2.0 Pro Preview and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Nova 2.0 Pro Preview has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper