Model comparison
Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 36.8 to 9.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 7.1% for Claude 2.1 and 39.5% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 24.9 | 41.4 |
| Released | 2023-11-21 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 25.8 (#322), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 39.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1357 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1427 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 20.6 (#216), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 82.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1414 |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.22 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |
Math Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 9.6 (#309), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1428 |
Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads
Claude 2.1: 15.5 (#287), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1428 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1240 |
Multilingual Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1409 |
| LMArena German | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1359 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1389 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1408 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1393 |
Long Context Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1413 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Claude 2.1: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)
| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1410 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 24.9 on the Noometry Index.
Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.6 versus 25.8 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.