Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Max vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5-Flash in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 25.6.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Max and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
Qwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.742.5
Released2025-01-252026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.10
Output $ / M tokens—$0.40
Results tracked2732

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding13591412
LMArena WebDev—1244
LiveBench Coding64.4%—
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Max: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Hard Prompts13601403
Epoch Capabilities Index132.53143.98
Chess Puzzles—21%
LiveBench Reasoning51.4%—
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LiveBench Data Analysis67.9%—
LMCA—29.1%
LiveBench62.3%—

Math Too close to call

Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Math13691407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LiveBench Math58.4%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Expert13371407
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Confabulations21.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English13521385
LMArena Chinese13821446
LMArena French13961412
LMArena German13501390
LMArena Japanese13001368
LMArena Korean13041344
LMArena Russian13531379
LMArena Spanish13771400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following13351374
LiveBench Instruction Following75.3%—

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query13581392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text13671397
LMArena Creative Writing13391343
LMArena Multi-Turn13641393
Short-Story Creative Writing72.9%—
LiveBench Language56.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Max or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper