Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.4

Rank #176 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 83.3% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.338.4
Released2024-02-042026-04-27
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.19
Output $ / M tokens—$1.13
Results tracked2213

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
LMArena Coding1166—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
ALE-Bench—326.4
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
SimpleBench—35.2%
Chess Puzzles—20%
LMArena Hard Prompts1148—
Mystery Game Puzzles—18%
DTBench—77.1%
LMCA—31%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.26

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math1164—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond28.8%83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
LMArena Expert1136—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1135—
LMArena Chinese1186—
LMArena French1158—
LMArena German1084—
LMArena Japanese1061—
LMArena Korean1049—
LMArena Russian1104—
LMArena Spanish1110—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1142—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1157—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1166—
LMArena Creative Writing1137—
LMArena Multi-Turn1160—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-72B better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.4 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-72B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper