Side-by-side benchmark comparison across agentic, coding, multimodal, knowledge, reasoning, and math workflows.
Nemotron-4 15B
42
0/8 categoriesQwen3.6 Plus
69
Winner · 7/8 categoriesNemotron-4 15B· Qwen3.6 Plus
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Nemotron-4 15B only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the aggregate, 69 to 42. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 64.9 against 25.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 31% to 78.8%.
Qwen3.6 Plus is the reasoning model in the pair, while Nemotron-4 15B 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. Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 32K for Nemotron-4 15B.
BenchLM keeps the benchmark table and the operator tradeoffs on the same page so a better score does not hide a materially slower, pricier, or smaller-context model.
Runtime metrics show N/A when BenchLM does not have a sourced snapshot for that exact model. The scoring rules and freshness policy are documented on the methodology page.
| Benchmark | Nemotron-4 15B | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 | 37% | 61.6% |
| BrowseComp | 47% | — |
| OSWorld-Verified | 42% | 62.5% |
| Claw-Eval | — | 58.7% |
| QwenClawBench | — | 57.2% |
| QwenWebBench | — | 1502 |
| TAU3-Bench | — | 70.7% |
| VITA-Bench | — | 44.3% |
| DeepPlanning | — | 41.5% |
| Toolathlon | — | 39.8% |
| MCP Atlas | — | 48.2% |
| MCP-Tasks | — | 74.1% |
| WideResearch | — | 74.3% |
| CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| HumanEval | 46% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified | 31% | 78.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 22% | — |
| SWE-bench Pro | — | 56.6% |
| SWE Multilingual | — | 73.8% |
| LiveCodeBench v6 | — | 87.1% |
| NL2Repo | — | 37.9% |
| Multimodal & GroundedQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMMU-Pro | 46% | 78.8% |
| OfficeQA Pro | 54% | — |
| MMMU | — | 86.0% |
| RealWorldQA | — | 85.4% |
| OmniDocBench 1.5 | — | 91.2% |
| Video-MME (with subtitle) | — | 87.8% |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle) | — | 84.2% |
| MathVision | — | 88.0% |
| We-Math | — | 89.0% |
| DynaMath | — | 88.0% |
| MStar | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleVQA | — | 67.3% |
| ChatCVQA | — | 81.5% |
| MMLongBench-Doc | — | 62.0% |
| CC-OCR | — | 83.4% |
| AI2D_TEST | — | 94.4% |
| CountBench | — | 97.6% |
| RefCOCO (avg) | — | 93.5% |
| ODINW13 | — | 51.8% |
| ERQA | — | 65.7% |
| VideoMMMU | — | 84.0% |
| MLVU (M-Avg) | — | 86.7% |
| ScreenSpot Pro | — | 68.2% |
| ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MuSR | 50% | — |
| BBH | 73% | — |
| LongBench v2 | 52% | 62% |
| MRCRv2 | 51% | — |
| AI-Needle | — | 68.3% |
| KnowledgeQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MMLU | 54% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 63% | 88.5% |
| HLE | 5% | 28.8% |
| FrontierScience | 50% | — |
| GPQA | — | 90.4% |
| SuperGPQA | — | 71.6% |
| MMLU-Redux | — | 94.5% |
| C-Eval | — | 93.3% |
| Instruction FollowingQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| IFEval | 79% | 94.3% |
| IFBench | — | 74.2% |
| MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins | ||
| MGSM | 75% | — |
| MMLU-ProX | 71% | 84.7% |
| NOVA-63 | — | 57.9% |
| INCLUDE | — | 85.1% |
| PolyMath | — | 77.4% |
| VWT2k-lite | — | 84.3% |
| MAXIFE | — | 88.2% |
| Mathematics | ||
| AIME 2023 | 54% | — |
| AIME 2024 | 56% | — |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | 51% | — |
| BRUMO 2025 | 53% | — |
| MATH-500 | 71% | — |
| AIME26 | — | 95.3% |
| HMMT Feb 2025 | — | 96.7% |
| HMMT Nov 2025 | — | 94.6% |
| HMMT Feb 2026 | — | 87.8% |
| MMAnswerBench | — | 83.8% |
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead overall, 69 to 42. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 31% and 78.8%.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66 versus 38.1. Inside this category, MMLU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 25.4. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 51.1. Inside this category, LongBench v2 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 41.3. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 78.8 versus 49.6. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 94.3 versus 79. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 72.4. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX 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.