Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
66
Verified leaderboard positions: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #27
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+3.0 difference
Knowledge
+2.9 difference
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128K
262K
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 66 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 60.5 against 57.6. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 57.6% to 86%. 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.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 66 to 59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 57.6% and 86%.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 57.6. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 66.9. Inside this category, LiveCodeBench is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.