Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-9B

Qwen3.5-9B leads Qwen2.5 72B Instruct on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 13.3 to 7.7, and Qwen3.5-9B costs 2.7x less per output token ($0.15 vs $0.40 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 11 benchmarks have a result for both.

Qwen2.5 72B InstructQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
26.5
Output $/M
$0.40
0
Qwen3.5-9BQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.15
11
vs boards won of 11 shared

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B: which to pick

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Shared results
11
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct only
42
Qwen3.5-9B only
4
Like-for-like categories
6 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct not benchmarked, Qwen3.5-9B not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 53.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: Qwen2.5 72B Instruct 8.1% against Qwen3.5-9B 61.7%, 53.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct $0.40 against Qwen3.5-9B $0.15 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
Context window
Qwen2.5 72B Instruct takes 33K tokens, Qwen3.5-9B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryQwen2.5 72B InstructBarsQwen3.5-9BTies
Coding01
Intelligence02
Agentic work01
Reasoning03
Math01
General03
All shared boards011
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured23.5Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)27.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
SciCodeNot measured29.5%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)4.5%24.2%Qwen3.5-9B
Terminal-BenchNot measured9.2%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
WeirdML16.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: coding1292Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1292Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Intelligence benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.713.3Qwen3.5-9B
Epoch Capabilities Index129.0139.3Qwen3.5-9B
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
τ²-Bench Telecom34.5%86.8%Qwen3.5-9B
METR time horizons35.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
BALROG16.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
TheAgentCompany5.7%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
Reasoning benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)49.1%80.6%Qwen3.5-9B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.6%14.9%Qwen3.5-9B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)49.1%79.0%Qwen3.5-9B
BIG-Bench Hard79.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1271Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: expert1245Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1279Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
AA Math Index14.0Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
OTIS Mock AIME8.1%61.7%Qwen3.5-9B
MATH level 563.2%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: math1283Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1290Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)72.0%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
MMLU85.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
AI2 Reasoning Challenge94.5%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: science1275Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1258Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1288Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1253Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index03
General benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
IFBench36.9%66.7%Qwen3.5-9B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.5-9B measured
DTBench62.9%71.2%Qwen3.5-9B
LMCA13.4%24.5%Qwen3.5-9B
HellaSwag84.8%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
WinoGrande82.3%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
PIQA82.6%Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text1269Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1254Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1221Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: English1283Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: non-English1252Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1273Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: German1234Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1180Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Korean1188Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: French1280Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1255Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: Russian1264Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1272Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1281Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1247Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1211Not measuredOnly Qwen2.5 72B Instruct measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
BenchmarkQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.0006Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-9B$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.019Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-9B$0.0054Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct$0.076Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-9B$0.021Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-9B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Qwen2.5 72B Instruct and Qwen3.5-9B
SpecificationQwen2.5 72B InstructQwen3.5-9B
MakerQwenQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedSeptember 19, 2024March 10, 2026
Context window33K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.36$0.10
Output $/Mtok$0.40$0.15
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Qwen2.5 72B Instruct better than Qwen3.5-9B for coding?

Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Qwen2.5 72B Instruct for work measured by Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) or AA Intelligence Index, where it leads.

Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen2.5 72B Instruct costs $0.36 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-9B costs $0.10 and $0.15. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen2.5 72B Instruct or Qwen3.5-9B?

Qwen3.5-9B, with 262K tokens against 33K.

How many benchmarks is the Qwen2.5 72B Instruct vs Qwen3.5-9B comparison based on?

11 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Qwen2.5 72B Instruct's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-9B's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next