Skip to main content

Model comparison

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

60.56/100
Margin
0.8pts
← winning
59.72/100
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #47 (Supported); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 13 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 18 results are unique to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B; 8 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
13
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
18
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
8
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if agentic is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 60.56 versus 59.72. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 72 against 51. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 49.4% to 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) does hit back in agentic, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
CategoryQwen3.5-122B-A10BΔQwen 3.6 Max (preview)
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0Margin 21.0Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6Margin 9.7Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9
AgenticQwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4Margin 9.0Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4
ReasoningQwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured
MathQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4
MultilingualQwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured
MultimodalQwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured
Inst. FollowingQwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4MarginNo overlapQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Qwen3.5-122B-A10BB · Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 49.4%B 65.4%
    Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 16
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 65.4%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark.
  2. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 67.1%B 73.9%
    Winner: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Δ 6.8
    SuperGPQA: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 67.1%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 73.9%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 outputQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.5-122B-A10B262KQwen 3.6 Max (preview)256KQwen3.5-122B-A10B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.4%65.4%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
BrowseCompSource 63.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 58%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 93.6%95.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 20.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 23.9%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 978Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 59.0%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1532Not comparable
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 45.7%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%46.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
SWE-bench ProSource 57.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 47%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 42.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
LongBench v2Source 60.2%Not comparable
AA-LCRSource 66.7%69.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
CritPtSource 0.6%3.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MMLU-ProSource 86.7%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 67.1%73.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
GPQASource 86.6%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 32.3%40.0%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 85.7%88.8%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-HLESource 23.4%28.9%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -39.6%10.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.7%37.7%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 85.5%44.2%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Math
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 23.103%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MMLU-ProXSource 82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MMMUSource 83.9%Not comparable
MMVUSource 74.7%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 86.2%Not comparable
CharXivSource 77.2%Not comparable
V*Source 93.2%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
IFEvalSource 93.4%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 75.7%76.6%Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) leads
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.56 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 49.4% and 65.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 73.9. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 51. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 56.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.