Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Max vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 35.3.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.7 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2025-01-25 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 27 | 11 |
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), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LiveBench Coding | 64.4% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1359 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 132.53 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 51.4% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1360 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 67.9% | — |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| LiveBench | 62.3% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 58.4% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1369 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| Confabulations | 21.8% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1337 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1352 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1382 | — |
| LMArena French | 1396 | — |
| LMArena German | 1350 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1300 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1304 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1353 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1377 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 75.3% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1335 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1358 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen2.5-Max leads
Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Max | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1367 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1339 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 72.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1364 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 56.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5-Max or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Qwen3.6 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.