Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.0

Rank #288 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 56.1 to 13.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 88.4% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen1.5-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.047.3
Released2024-02-042026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked2137

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.1 (#278), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding11551467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
BigCodeBench Instruct32.3%—
BigCodeBench Complete42%—
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-32B: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 20.9 (#210), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts11311449
NYT Connections (extended)—60.3%
CritPt—2.9%
Chess Puzzles—17%
Thematic Generalization—59.5%
Mystery Game Puzzles—12%
DTBench—81.9%
LMCA—33.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—147.67

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 30.5 (#207), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math11551450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#291), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond30.7%88.4%
LMArena Expert11261456
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%
MMLU74.4%—

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 31.6 (#254), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English11061424
LMArena Chinese11761478
LMArena French11001454
LMArena German10581451
LMArena Japanese10271389
LMArena Korean10071381
LMArena Russian10731434
LMArena Spanish10891432

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 58.0 (#260), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following11161425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#241), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query11461440
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-32B: 34.4 (#266), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-32BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text11371437
LMArena Creative Writing10831405
LMArena Multi-Turn11401438

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 30.0 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 31.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper