| Signal | Qwen 2.5 72B | Delta | Qwen 3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Result | 0 wins | of 0 | 0 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
Alibaba
Alibaba
Pricing unavailable
| Metric | Qwen 2.5 72B | Qwen 3.5 397B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 76 | 91 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Rank | #9 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Quality Rank | #9 | #7 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Adoption Rank | #9 | #8 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 128K | 131K | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Pricing | $0.80/$2.00/M | -- | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
Qwen 3.5 397B clearly outperforms Qwen 2.5 72B with a significant 15.439999999999998-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen 3.5 397B is the stronger choice. However, Qwen 2.5 72B may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
Qwen 2.5 72B
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Reliability
Qwen 2.5 72B
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
Qwen 2.5 72B
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
Qwen 2.5 72B
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by Alibaba
Qwen 3.5 397B currently scores higher (91 vs 76), but the best choice depends on your specific use case, budget, and requirements.
Qwen 2.5 72B is ranked #9 and Qwen 3.5 397B is ranked #7. Rankings are based on a composite score from multiple signals including benchmarks, community sentiment, and adoption metrics.
Pricing information may not be available for both models. Check individual model pages for the latest pricing details.