Model comparison
Nova Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Nova Pro #196 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Nova Pro and Qwen3.5 397B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 0 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Nova Pro; 43 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 20, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Nova Pro only
- 0
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 43
- Comparable categories
- 0 / 8
Benchmark data for Nova Pro and Qwen3.5 397B is coming soon on BenchLM.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 0 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
BenchLM has partial data for these models, but not enough overlapping benchmark coverage to produce a fair score-level comparison yet.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Nova Pro | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Knowledge | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Math | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | Nova ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Nova Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Nova ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Nova Pro141 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | Nova Pro has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Nova Pro0.81 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Nova Pro reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Nova Pro128K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nova Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 14% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Nova Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 7.7% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 49.9% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 3.4% | 27.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -47.6% | -29.8% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 17.0% | 31.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 77.9% | 89.1% | Nova Pro leads |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Can I compare Nova Pro and Qwen3.5 397B on BenchLM yet?
Not fully yet. BenchLM is tracking both models, but the sourced benchmark breakdown for this comparison is still coming soon.
Why does this comparison show “coming soon”?
BenchLM only shows category winners and benchmark-level calls when we have sourced results that can be compared fairly. For these models, the public benchmark coverage is not complete enough yet.
What data is available for Nova Pro and Qwen3.5 397B today?
Nova Pro: Pricing unavailable Qwen3.5 397B: $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens Both model pages still include creator, context window, reasoning mode, and other metadata while benchmark coverage fills in.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.