Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Wins 0 of 5 areas
—
Wins 5 of 5 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Long documents · Following instructions
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B is cheaper.
Scores updated · 21 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the five areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking03Qwen3.6 Plus3 of 3 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up02Qwen3.6 Plus2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts02Qwen3.6 Plus2 of 2 tests
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked01Qwen3.6 Plus1 of 1 test
Following instructions rests on a single test.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B costs 72% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 Plus pulls ahead
- Reasons across sets of long documentsAA-LCR+58.3points ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+55points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+50.9points ahead
Where Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 21 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 Plus
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 Plus by 5523.878.8+55
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 Plus by 39.44.543.9+39.4
- SciCodeQwen3.6 Plus by 1426.740.7+14
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 Plus by 39.149.188.2+39.1
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 Plus by 24.23.627.8+24.2
- CritPtQwen3.6 Plus by 2.902.9+2.9
FactsQwen3.6 Plus
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 Plus by 50.914.565.4+50.9
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.6 Plus by 8.917.526.4+8.9
Long documentsQwen3.6 Plus
- AA-LCRQwen3.6 Plus by 58.32078.3+58.3
- LongBench v2Qwen3.6 Plus by 22.639.462+22.6
Following instructionsQwen3.6 Plus
- IFBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 38.336.975.2+38.3
Other results10 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 Plus by 63.234.597.7+63.2
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.6 Plus by 54-53.10.9+54
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 Plus by 42.611.954.5+42.6
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 Plus by 19.37.727+19.3
- LiveBenchQwen3.6 Plus by 18.652.370.8+18.6
- MMLU-ProQwen3.6 Plus by 17.471.188.5+17.4
- MMMLUQwen3.6 Plus by 14.774.889.5+14.7
- IFEvalQwen3.6 Plus by 10.284.194.3+10.2
- MMLU-ReduxQwen3.6 Plus by 7.786.894.5+7.7
- C-EvalQwen3.6 Plus by 4.189.293.3+4.1
Questions people ask
Which is better, Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus wins all five areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B wins none, but costs 72% less.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Plus. It wins 3 of the 3 coding tests both models report; Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B costs $0.47 per million input tokens and $0.49 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 Plus costs $0.50 and $3.00. That makes Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B about 72% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 21 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 10 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.