Model comparison

Granite 4.2 8B vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 40.5 on the Noometry Index. Granite 4.2 8B costs 13× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified October 12, 2026. 0 shared benchmarks.

Granite 4.2 8B IBM

40.5

Rank #148 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B

Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 38.4.
Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper at $0.06 / $0.25 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 4.2 8B and Qwen3.6 27B specifications
	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
Provider	IBM	Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index	40.5	42.2
Released	—	2026-04-22
Weights	Open	Open
Context window	131K	262K
Max output	118K	66K
Input $ / M tokens	$0.06	$0.60
Output $ / M tokens	$0.25	$3.60
Results tracked	11	11

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.5 (#137), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
SciCode	—	37.3%
LMArena Coding	1380	—

Reasoning Granite 4.2 8B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 26.6 (#131), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
CritPt	—	0.9%
Chess Puzzles	—	22%
LMArena Hard Prompts	1329	—
Mystery Game Puzzles	—	7%
DTBench	—	78.1%
LMCA	—	34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index	—	146.5

Math Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Math benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)	—	35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025	—	91.1%

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

Granite 4.2 8B: 38.4 (#145), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond	—	85.9%
LMArena Expert	1384	—

Multilingual Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: 44.5 (#178), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English	1302	—
LMArena Chinese	1366	—
LMArena Russian	1285	—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: 68.7 (#184), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Instruction Following	1301	—

Long Context Not comparable

Granite 4.2 8B: 40.3 (#159), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query	1324	—

Writing & Preference Too close to call

Granite 4.2 8B: 49.6 (#189), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmark	Granite 4.2 8B	Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text	1320	—
LMArena Creative Writing	1236	—
EQ-Bench 4	—	1026
LMArena Multi-Turn	1301	—

Frequently asked questions

Is Granite 4.2 8B better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Which is cheaper, Granite 4.2 8B or Qwen3.6 27B?

Granite 4.2 8B is cheaper. It lists at $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.25 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is Granite 4.2 8B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Granite 4.2 8B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.5 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Granite 4.2 8B and Qwen3.6 27B share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Granite 4.2 8B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.