Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Updated July 29, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Alibaba

—

Evidence status unavailable

90% interval unavailable

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Alibaba

59.3/100

Supported · Public rank #56

90% interval 40.4–78.2

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) only
0
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
9
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Agentic

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
65.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
51.0
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
73.9
Weighted basis
0 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
18.4
Weighted basis
0 vs 2 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
Not measured
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
$0.0024
Fits in one request
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
$0.0408
Fits in one request
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)
$0.168
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

128K

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

256K

API model ID

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Not published

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Provider availability

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Not sourced

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Reasoning

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Reasoning

Weight access

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Open Weight

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Proprietary

License

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

Open Weight

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

Proprietary

Release date

Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)

2026-02-16

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

2026-04-20

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
Both entries list Alibaba as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the larger documented window (256K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence9 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)59.0%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)57.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SciCode

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)47%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)42.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • SuperGPQA

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)23.103%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning)—
    Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)4.167%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?

Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the larger documented context window: 256K, compared with 128K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated July 29, 2026

Watch Qwen3.5 397B (Reasoning) vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.