Model comparison
Qwen1.5-7B vs Qwen3.5-9B
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-9B leads 46.0 to 28.7.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 33.8 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 13 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1107 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: —, Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1065 | — |
| DTBench | — | 71.2% |
| LMCA | — | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 139.46 |
Math Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1080 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 79% |
| LMArena Expert | 1055 | — |
| MMLU | 62.6% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1058 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1141 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1006 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1058 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1090 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-7B | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1083 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1035 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1062 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-7B better than Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.8 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-7B or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
Qwen3.5-9B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 35.9 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen3.5-9B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-7B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.