Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
59
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
79
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Coding
+15.8 difference
Knowledge
+16.3 difference
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
128K
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only becomes the better choice if coding is the priority.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 79 to 59. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)'s sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 73.9 against 57.6. 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.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 79 to 59.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 57.6. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 69.9 versus 54.1. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.