Model Comparison
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
vs. Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) 13 metric wins Strongest on: Value, Input price, Throughput
Best Value
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
49.3 reasoning / $0.56/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
$0.25/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
49.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
35.2 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) is 1.5x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B.
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B by 20.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) leads Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B by 23.3 points on coding.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) wins 13 measurable categories, including Value, Input price, Throughput, Reasoning.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B | Top Pick Al Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.36/1M | $0.25/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.40/1M | $1.49/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.37/1M | $0.56/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Sep 19, 2024 | Apr 16, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 161.1 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1320ms |
| Latency | — | 34805ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 86.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 28.4 | 49.3 |
| Intelligence | 15.6 | 43.5 |
| Coding | 11.9 | 35.2 |
| Math | 14.0 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 49.1% | 84.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 72.0% | — |
| HLE | 4.2% | 20.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 27.6% | — |
| MATH 500 | 85.8% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 14.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 16.0% | — |
| SciCode | 26.7% | 35.8% |
| LCR | 20.3% | 63.7% |
| IFBench | 36.9% | 64.4% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 34.5% | 95.3% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 4.5% | 34.8% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.25/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 49.3 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning) reaches a 35.2 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen2.5 Instruct 72B
- General-purpose AI
- Versatile applications
Qwen3.6 35B A3B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
