Model comparison
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 28 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 28 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 51.8 to 46.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 31.2% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 46.0 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2026-02-01 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.60 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 36 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 42.0 (#114), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | 1400 | 1461 |
| LMArena Coding | 1465 | 1467 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| ALE-Bench | — | 670.15 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.3 (#53), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | 24.9% | — |
| τ²-bench Airline | 81.5% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 9.8% | — |
| τ²-bench Retail | 84.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Telecom | 97.8% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 34.5 (#70), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | 58.9% | 60.3% |
| Chess Puzzles | 13% | 17% |
| Thematic Generalization | 65.1% | 59.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1448 | 1449 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 18% | 12% |
| DTBench | 87.5% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 37.9% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.65 | 147.65 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 73.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 46.1 (#73), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 31.2% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 88.9% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1454 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 26.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#58), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 86.4% | 88.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1462 | 1454 |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 44.1% |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.7 (#44), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1263 | — |
Multilingual Too close to call
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.7 (#59), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1430 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1500 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1461 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1447 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1426 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1384 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1429 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1441 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.0 (#77), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1424 | 1425 |
Long Context Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#74), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1442 | 1439 |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.3 (#79), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1438 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1401 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1446 | 1438 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1478 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 46.0 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 42.0 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
28 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.