Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen2-72B vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

29.5

Rank #294 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

47.3

Rank #54 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2-72B 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 21.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 40.8% for Qwen2-72B and 88.4% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
  • Qwen2-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.547.3
Released2024-06-072026-03-31
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window—1M
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.50
Output $ / M tokens—$3
Results tracked2637

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 28.7 (#303), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.6 (#125)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Coding11961467
SWE-bench Verified—57.9%
LMArena WebDev—1461
SciCode—40.7%
WeirdML11.3%—
BigCodeBench Instruct38.5%—
BigCodeBench Complete54%—
ALE-Bench—670.15

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2-72B: 16.9 (#138), Qwen3.6 Plus: —

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
TheAgentCompany1.1%—
METR Time Horizons29.9%—
Vending-Bench 2—5,115

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 22.2 (#184), Qwen3.6 Plus: 28.5 (#89)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Hard Prompts11911449
Epoch Capabilities Index125.27147.67
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%

Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 27.9 (#232), Qwen3.6 Plus: 50.6 (#44)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Math12351450
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—38.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—93.3%
MATH Level 539.1%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—26.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—8.3%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 21.2 (#270), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#40)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
GPQA Diamond40.8%88.4%
LMArena Expert11711456
SimpleQA Verified—44.1%
MMLU82.4%—

Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 36.0 (#239), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.5 (#66)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Non-English11761424
LMArena Chinese12401478
LMArena French11691454
LMArena German11511451
LMArena Japanese11111389
LMArena Korean10831381
LMArena Russian11691434
LMArena Spanish11681432

Instruction Following Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 62.0 (#236), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.2 (#70)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following11811425

Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 36.1 (#230), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.1 (#48)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Longer Query11931440
CL-bench—20.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads

Qwen2-72B: 41.0 (#236), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.4 (#78)

BenchmarkQwen2-72BQwen3.6 Plus
LMArena Text12031437
LMArena Creative Writing11811405
LMArena Multi-Turn11951438

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2-72B better than Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.3 to 29.5 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2-72B or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 Plus scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.6 versus 28.7 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2-72B and Qwen3.6 Plus share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2-72B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.

Related comparisons

Go deeper