Skip to main content

Model comparison

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 28 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

60.56/100
Margin
4.6pts
winning →
65.2/100
3 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B #47 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B and Qwen3.6 Plus share 28 comparable benchmark results. 7 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to Qwen3.5-122B-A10B; 32 to Qwen3.6 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
28
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
3
Qwen3.6 Plus only
32
Comparable categories
7 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 28 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 7 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 60.56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 61.6 against 56.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 49.4% to 61.6%. Qwen3.5-122B-A10B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B.

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 Qwen3.6 Plus
CategoryQwen3.5-122B-A10BΔQwen3.6 Plus
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B83.6Margin 26.5Qwen3.6 Plus57.1
Inst. FollowingQwen3.5-122B-A10B93.4Margin 11.1Qwen3.6 Plus82.3
AgenticQwen3.5-122B-A10B56.4Margin 5.2Qwen3.6 Plus61.6
MultimodalQwen3.5-122B-A10B77.2Margin 2.6Qwen3.6 Plus79.8
MultilingualQwen3.5-122B-A10B82.2Margin 2.5Qwen3.6 Plus84.7
ReasoningQwen3.5-122B-A10B60.2Margin 1.8Qwen3.6 Plus62.0
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B72.0Margin 1.7Qwen3.6 Plus70.3
MathQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.6 Plus60.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Qwen3.5-122B-A10BB · Qwen3.6 Plus
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 49.4%B 61.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 12.2
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 49.4%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 72%B 78.8%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 6.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 72%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
  3. SuperGPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 67.1%B 71.6%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 4.5
    SuperGPQA: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 67.1%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 71.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
  4. CharXiv

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 81.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 4.3
    CharXiv: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 77.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 81.5%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
  5. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 86.6%B 90.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 3.8
    GPQA: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scored 86.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.5-122B-A10B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.5-122B-A10BNot availableQwen3.6 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.5-122B-A10B262KQwen3.6 Plus1MQwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 49.4%61.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
BrowseCompSource 63.8%Not comparable
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 58%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 93.6%97.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 20.7%27.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 23.9%31.8%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GDPval-AASource 9781135Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Claw-EvalSource 58.8%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 57.2%Not comparable
τ³-bench resultsSource 70.7%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource 44.3%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource 41.5%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 39.8%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource 48.2%Not comparable
MCP-TasksSource 74.1%Not comparable
WideResearchSource 74.3%Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 50.60%Not comparable
ResearchClawBenchSource 18.0%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72%78.8%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA Coding IndexSource 45.7%54.5%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-SciCodeSource 42.0%40.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads
SWE-bench ProSource 56.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource 73.8%Not comparable
LiveCodeBench v6Source 87.1%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 25.56%Not comparable
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
LongBench v2Source 60.2%62%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-LCRSource 66.7%69.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
CritPtSource 0.6%2.9%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AI-NeedleSource 68.3%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.7%88.5%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
SuperGPQASource 67.1%71.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
GPQASource 86.6%90.4%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 32.3%39.6%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 85.7%88.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 23.4%25.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -39.6%2.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 24.7%26.2%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 85.5%32.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 94.5%Not comparable
C-EvalSource 93.3%Not comparable
HLESource 28.8%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
AIME26Source 95.3%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2025Source 96.7%Not comparable
HMMT Nov 2025Source 94.6%Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source 87.8%Not comparable
MMAnswerBenchSource 83.8%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 26.207%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 8.333%Not comparable
MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource 82.2%84.7%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
NOVA-63Source 57.9%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.6 Plus wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
MMMUSource 83.9%86.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MMVUSource 74.7%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 86.2%88.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
CharXivSource 77.2%81.5%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
V*Source 93.2%96.9%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-MMMU-ProSource 75.0%78.0%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
MMMU-ProSource 78.8%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource 84.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 68.2%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1249Not comparable
Inst. FollowingQwen3.5-122B-A10B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen3.6 PlusResult
IFEvalSource 93.4%94.3%Qwen3.6 Plus leads
AA-IFBenchSource 75.7%75.2%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B leads
IFBenchSource 75.8%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (8)

Which is better, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 60.56. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 49.4% and 61.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 83.6 versus 57.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 72 versus 70.3. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for reasoning, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 60.2. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.6 versus 56.4. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79.8 versus 77.2. Inside this category, CharXiv is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for instruction following, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.4 versus 82.3. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multilingual tasks, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 82.2. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX 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.