Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen1.5-72B vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.3

Rank #282 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-72B 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 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B and 88.4% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.347.3
Released2024-02-042026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked2237

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 31.4 (#272), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding11661467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
BigCodeBench Instruct33.2%—
BigCodeBench Complete40.3%—
ALE-Bench—670.15
HumanEval+59.1%—
MBPP+61.6%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-72B: —, Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 21.2 (#201), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts11481449
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

Qwen1.5-72B: 30.7 (#205), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math11641450
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

Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#295), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond28.8%88.4%
LMArena Expert11361456
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 33.4 (#248), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English11351424
LMArena Chinese11861478
LMArena French11581454
LMArena German10841451
LMArena Japanese10611389
LMArena Korean10491381
LMArena Russian11041434
LMArena Spanish11101432

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 59.6 (#251), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following11421425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 35.0 (#238), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query11571440
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen1.5-72B: 37.4 (#253), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

BenchmarkQwen1.5-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text11661437
LMArena Creative Writing11371405
LMArena Multi-Turn11601438

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 30.3 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 31.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-72B has 22 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper