Skip to main content

Model comparison

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
No comparison
59.72/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking unranked (Not scored); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 5 results are unique to Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking; 21 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
0
Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking only
5
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
21
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking makes more sense if its workflow fits your team better; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 128K for Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingNot availableQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensMellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking128KQwen 3.6 Max (preview)256KQwen 3.6 Max (preview) lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
BFCL v4Source 45.6%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource 59.0%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource 1532Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 95.9%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
SWE-bench ProSource 57.3%Not comparable
SciCodeSource 47%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource 42.9%Not comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 65.4%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
AA-LCRSource 69.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource 3.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
MMLU-ReduxSource 86.2%Not comparable
GPQASource 57.6%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 57.6%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 73.9%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 40.0%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 88.8%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 28.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 10.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 37.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 44.2%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 23.103%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 4.167%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkMellum2-12B-A2.5B-ThinkingQwen 3.6 Max (preview)Result
IFEvalSource 76.5%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 76.6%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Mellum2-12B-A2.5B-Thinking or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

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.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.