Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 15 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Max Preview Alibaba (Qwen)

51.5

Rank #43 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 15 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 57.6 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 87.4% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.851.5
Released2024-02-042026-04-20
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$1.30
Output $ / M tokens—$7.80
Results tracked2229

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.7 (#54)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Coding11651471
SWE-bench Verified—76.7%
LMArena WebDev—1482
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
Vending-Bench 2—4,254

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 41.7 (#53)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Hard Prompts11481457
SimpleBench—63%
NYT Connections (extended)—74.1%
Chess Puzzles—20%
Mystery Game Puzzles—19%
DTBench—87.2%
LMCA—42.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index—149.24

Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.1 (#46)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Math11641465
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—91.1%
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—23.1%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—4.2%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#39)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
GPQA Diamond28.8%87.4%
LMArena Expert11361478
SimpleQA Verified—52%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.2 (#48)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Non-English11351437
LMArena Chinese11861487
LMArena French11591449
LMArena Russian11041445
LMArena Spanish11101454
LMArena German1084—
LMArena Japanese1061—
LMArena Korean1050—

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.7 (#55)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Instruction Following11411438

Long Context Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#61)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Longer Query11571457

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 63.8 (#60)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Max Preview
LMArena Text11661447
LMArena Creative Writing11371435
LMArena Multi-Turn11601456

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.5 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-72B or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.7 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

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

15 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.

Related comparisons

Go deeper