Skip to main content

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking vs Qwen3.5 397B

Head-to-head comparison across 3benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking

59

VS

Qwen3.5 397B

63

1 categoriesvs2 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked · Qwen3.5 397B #20

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Coding

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
69.9vs60.3

+9.6 difference

Knowledge

Qwen3.5 397B
57.6vs65.2

+7.6 difference

Inst. Following

Qwen3.5 397B
76.5vs92.6

+16.1 difference

Operational Comparison

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking

Qwen3.5 397B

Price (per 1M tokens)

N/A

$0.6 / $3.6

Speed

N/A

96 t/s

Latency (TTFT)

N/A

2.44s

Context Window

128K

128K

Quick Verdict

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.

Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 63 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in instruction following, where it averages 92.6 against 76.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 57.6% to 88.4%. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking does hit back in coding, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 63 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 57.6% and 88.4%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.5 397B?

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 60.3. Qwen3.5 397B stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for instruction following, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen3.5 397B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.6 versus 76.5. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: June 8, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.