Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 72 to 49. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)'s sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 59.9 against 49.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49.4% to 60%.
K-Exaone gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning).
Pick Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. K-Exaone only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 256K context window.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
K-Exaone
49.4
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
59.9
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Benchmark data for this category is coming soon.
Comparable scores for this category are coming soon. One or both models do not have sourced results here yet.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) is ahead overall, 72 to 49. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49.4% and 60%.
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 59.9 versus 49.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Get notified when new models drop, benchmark scores change, or the leaderboard shifts. One email per week.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime. We only store derived location metadata for consent routing.