Model comparison
Granite 4.0 Micro vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Granite 4.0 Micro scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 9.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 2.8% for Granite 4.0 Micro and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper at $0.017 / $0.11 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | IBM | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2025-10-02 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 118K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.017 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.11 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 8 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 19.2 (#265), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 22% |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 12.0 (#307), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 2.8% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| Omni-MATH | 20.9% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 9.9 (#304), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 28.3% | 85.9% |
| MMLU-Pro | 39.5% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 30.7% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Granite 4.0 Micro: 69.9 (#169), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| IFEval | 84.9% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Granite 4.0 Micro: 46.7 (#216), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Granite 4.0 Micro | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WildBench | 67% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Granite 4.0 Micro better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.0 Micro costs 33× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Granite 4.0 Micro or Qwen3.6 27B?
Granite 4.0 Micro is cheaper. It lists at $0.017 per million input tokens and $0.11 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Granite 4.0 Micro and Qwen3.6 27B share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.0 Micro has 8 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.