Qwen3.6-Plus
Made by Alibaba, released 31 Mar 2026. Epoch AI lists its access as “API access”. No Top tier or Strong results yet among the models listed here.
In short
What it does well
No Top tier or Strong ratings on the four main tests yet.
Where it falls short
- Maths: Behind the leaders (39th of 43 listed models)
- Writing: Behind the leaders (64th of 77 listed models)
- Coding: Middle (54th of 77 listed models)
- Knowledge: Middle (29th of 43 listed models)
What we don't know yet
- Difficult coding tasks: Not enough data
The four ratings
- Top tier
- Strong
- Middle
- Behind the leaders
- Not enough data
Ratings compare only the 77 models listed here, in quarters, best first. “Not enough data” means no result yet. It is never a low score.
- Writing
- Behind the leadersHow often people preferred its answers to writing prompts. 1,403 on Arena's scale · Source for Qwen3.6-Plus writing score (lmarena)
- Coding
- MiddleHow often people preferred its answers to coding questions. 1,467 on Arena's scale · Source for Qwen3.6-Plus coding score (lmarena)
- Maths
- Behind the leadersHow many very hard maths problems it solved. 32.3% · Source for Qwen3.6-Plus maths score (epoch)
- Knowledge
- MiddleHow many short factual questions it answered correctly. 44.1% · Source for Qwen3.6-Plus knowledge score (epoch)
Evidence completeness: Broad evidence, 12 of 13 tests have a result.
Where it is relatively stronger or weaker
This compares each kind of request with the model's own overall position among the 77 listed models, using Arena's votes. It is about performance on different languages, kinds of request and topics, not about political or social bias.
Relatively stronger
No category stands out as clearly stronger than its overall position.
Relatively weaker
No category stands out as clearly weaker than its overall position.
Show every category we can see
| Category | Position | Arena score | Votes | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expert-level prompts Kind of request | 58th of 77 | 1,454 95% range 1,445 to 1,463 | 4,916 | Source for Expert-level prompts |
| Hard prompts Kind of request | 60th of 77 | 1,448 95% range 1,444 to 1,453 | 32,550 | Source for Hard prompts |
| Long prompts Kind of request | 59th of 77 | 1,439 95% range 1,433 to 1,445 | 21,157 | Source for Long prompts |
| Longer conversations Kind of request | 64th of 77 | 1,438 95% range 1,431 to 1,446 | 8,438 | Source for Longer conversations |
| Chinese Language | 61st of 76 | 1,476 95% range 1,464 to 1,488 | 2,652 | Source for Chinese |
| English prompts Language | 64th of 77 | 1,445 95% range 1,440 to 1,451 | 21,609 | Source for English prompts |
| French Language | 56th of 72 | 1,455 95% range 1,439 to 1,470 | 1,840 | Source for French |
| German Language | 36th of 55 | 1,452 95% range 1,431 to 1,474 | 794 | Source for German |
| Japanese Language | 46th of 54 | 1,391 95% range 1,364 to 1,417 | 555 | Source for Japanese |
| Korean Language | 50th of 54 | 1,379 95% range 1,358 to 1,400 | 821 | Source for Korean |
| Non-English prompts Language | 65th of 77 | 1,424 95% range 1,419 to 1,429 | 26,514 | Source for Non-English prompts |
| Russian Language | 61st of 77 | 1,434 95% range 1,425 to 1,442 | 5,253 | Source for Russian |
| Spanish Language | 60th of 70 | 1,432 95% range 1,416 to 1,448 | 1,580 | Source for Spanish |
| Entertainment, sport and media Topic | 64th of 77 | 1,402 95% range 1,395 to 1,409 | 10,147 | Source for Entertainment, sport and media |
| Law and government Topic | 63rd of 76 | 1,437 95% range 1,426 to 1,447 | 3,617 | Source for Law and government |
| Medicine and health Topic | 58th of 75 | 1,442 95% range 1,432 to 1,453 | 3,465 | Source for Medicine and health |
| Science Topic | 67th of 77 | 1,439 95% range 1,432 to 1,447 | 7,642 | Source for Science |
| Software and IT Topic | 58th of 77 | 1,462 95% range 1,456 to 1,467 | 20,155 | Source for Software and IT |
Bias: what we can and can't see
Our sources do not measure political lean, stereotyping, flattery (agreeing with you too readily) or safety behaviour, so we cannot say how any model does on those. What we can show is above: where a model is relatively stronger or weaker across languages, kinds of request and topics. Also, people voting in Arena can favour answer style, such as length and formatting, and our numbers do not adjust for that. See what AI bias means and what these tests can tell you.
Best-supported use cases
This model is not among the options we recommend for any of the five tasks. That reflects the rules and the models listed, not a verdict on the model.
Where an alternative might be more suitable
- Writing and creating content: rated Behind the leaders on writing votes. Compare it with Claude Opus 5.5, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Coding and building things: rated Middle on coding votes. Compare it with Claude Opus 5.5, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Homework and maths: rated Behind the leaders on hard maths problems. Compare it with GPT-6.1 Sol, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Business emails and everyday work: rated Behind the leaders on business-task votes. Compare it with Gemini 4 Argon, the best-supported choice for this task.
- Research and checking facts: rated Middle on short factual questions. Compare it with Gemini 4 Argon, the best-supported choice for this task.
What it is
- Maker
- Alibaba
- Release date (Epoch AI)
- 31 Mar 2026
- Access, as listed by Epoch AI
- API access
- Licence, as listed by Arena
- Proprietary
- Maker's country (Epoch AI)
- China
- Last observation in our data
- 28 Oct 2026
- Data last changed
- 29 Oct 2026, 14:36 UTC
We have not verified an official product page for this model, so we do not link to one.
How you can use it
Proprietary. The model's files are not published, so it is generally available only through its maker or partners the maker chooses.
How you can reach it (an app, a website, a developer API or a third-party tool) and what that costs are not covered by our benchmark data. Where we could verify prices from the maker's own pages, they are shown under Price. Epoch AI lists access as “API access”. See models, apps and harnesses and how AI pricing works.
Price
Price not independently verified
We have not been able to check this maker's own pricing page, so we show nothing for it.
We never infer subscription prices from API prices. New to “tokens” and “per million”? See how AI pricing works.
Good to remember
- Benchmarks are samples of tasks. None proves performance in every situation.
- Arena scores come from people choosing between answers. That measures preference, not correctness.
- Ratings are relative to the 77 models listed here. A different set would change them.
- Sources test models at different settings. Each result shows the setting used, and we do not adjust it.
The evidence, for the curious
Show all 13 tests with settings and sources
| Test | Result | Rating | Setting used | Source identifier | Observed | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arena text: overall preference Arena 'text' leaderboard (Bradley-Terry rating, no style control) |
1,436 Arena score 95% range 1,432 to 1,440, 48,126 votes |
Behind the leaders | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: overall preference score (lmarena) |
| Arena text: creative writing Arena 'text' leaderboard, category creative_writing |
1,403 Arena score 95% range 1,395 to 1,411, 7,196 votes |
Behind the leaders | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: creative writing score (lmarena) |
| Arena text: coding Arena 'text' leaderboard, category coding |
1,467 Arena score 95% range 1,461 to 1,473, 14,681 votes |
Middle | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: coding score (lmarena) |
| Arena text: maths Arena 'text' leaderboard, category math |
1,449 Arena score 95% range 1,438 to 1,461, 2,690 votes |
Middle | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: maths score (lmarena) |
| Arena text: following instructions Arena 'text' leaderboard, category instruction_following |
1,424 Arena score 95% range 1,418 to 1,430, 16,543 votes |
Behind the leaders | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: following instructions score (lmarena) |
| Arena text: business and management Arena 'text' leaderboard, category industry_business_and_management_and_financial_operations |
1,430 Arena score 95% range 1,423 to 1,437, 10,060 votes |
Behind the leaders | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · text/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena text: business and management score (lmarena) |
| Arena WebDev: building web apps Arena 'webdev' leaderboard (Code Arena), category overall |
1,462 Arena score 95% range 1,456 to 1,467, 18,511 votes |
Middle | effort: not stated, bradley-terry rating | Qwen3.6-Plus lmarena · webdev/latest |
28 Oct 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus Arena WebDev: building web apps score (lmarena) |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 v2 (private set), benchmark released 2026-06-12 |
32.3% share of problems solved standard error ±2.8 points |
Behind the leaders | effort: none, best score across scorers | qwen3.6-plus_none epoch · frontiermath_tiers_1_3_v2.csv |
29 Aug 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) score (epoch) · Run details for FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025, benchmark released 2024-12-19 |
93.3% share of problems solved standard error ±3.8 points |
Middle | effort: not stated, best score across scorers | qwen3.6-plus epoch · otis_mock_aime_2024_2025.csv |
7 Aug 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 score (epoch) · Run details for OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 |
| GPQA Diamond GPQA Diamond, benchmark released 2023-11-20 |
88.4% share of questions correct standard error ±2.3 points |
Middle | effort: not stated, best score across scorers | qwen3.6-plus epoch · gpqa_diamond.csv |
7 Aug 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus GPQA Diamond score (epoch) · Run details for GPQA Diamond |
| SimpleQA Verified SimpleQA Verified, benchmark released 2025-09-09 |
44.1% share of questions correct standard error ±1.6 points |
Middle | effort: not stated, best score across scorers | qwen3.6-plus epoch · simpleqa_verified.csv |
27 Aug 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus SimpleQA Verified score (epoch) · Run details for SimpleQA Verified |
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs) SWE-bench Verified, benchmark released 2024-08-13, as run by Epoch AI |
57.9% share of issues resolved standard error ±2.2 points |
Behind the leaders | effort: not stated, best score across scorers | qwen3.6-plus epoch · swe_bench_verified.csv |
14 May 2026 | Source for Qwen3.6-Plus SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs) score (epoch) · Run details for SWE-bench Verified (Epoch runs) |
| FrontierCode (reported by Cognition) | Not enough data | |||||
Missing evidence
Not enough data for these tests:
- FrontierCode (reported by Cognition)
Missing results are not low scores and do not count against the model.
Where a source gives no public run log, we cannot show the run behind the score. See data sources.
Not sure this is the right one?
Tell us what you need help with and we'll narrow the options down.