Model comparison
Codellama 34b Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Meta
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 50.3 to 28.4.
Side by side
| Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Meta | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.2 | 41.9 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.0 (#310), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 29% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1046 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 37.1% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 43.9% | — |
| MBPP+ | 56.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Codellama 34b Instruct: 18.8 (#250), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1032 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.47 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.5 (#227), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1056 | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Codellama 34b Instruct: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Codellama 34b Instruct: 25.9 (#279), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1011 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 976 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Codellama 34b Instruct: 52.4 (#286), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1028 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Codellama 34b Instruct: 30.8 (#279), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1014 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Codellama 34b Instruct: 28.4 (#292), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | Codellama 34b Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1066 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1032 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1015 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Codellama 34b Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 30.2 on the Noometry Index.
Is Codellama 34b Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 28.0 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Codellama 34b Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Codellama 34b Instruct has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.