Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 82.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.342.3
Released2024-02-042026-02-23
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked2232

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding11661412
LMArena WebDev—1243
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
ALE-Bench—221.8
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts11481404
Chess Puzzles—21%
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205), Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math11641407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond28.8%82.3%
LMArena Expert11361408
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English11351385
LMArena Chinese11861446
LMArena French11581412
LMArena German10841389
LMArena Japanese10611369
LMArena Korean10491344
LMArena Russian11041379
LMArena Spanish11101399

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following11421374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query11571392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253), Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text11661397
LMArena Creative Writing11371343
LMArena Multi-Turn11601393

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-72B or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 33.9 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper