Model comparison
Qwen-14B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen-14B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 50.3 to 27.6.
Side by side
| Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 31.4 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2023-09-24 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#288), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1071 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen-14B: 19.6 (#257), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 113.03 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1027 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 55% | — |
| LAMBADA | 71.1% | — |
| PIQA | 79.9% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen-14B: 31.2 (#227), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1068 | — |
| GSM8K | 61.3% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen-14B: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 84.4% | — |
| BoolQ | 86.2% | — |
| MMLU | 66.3% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 27.5 (#275), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1041 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1077 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 52.4 (#289), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1031 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen-14B: 31.3 (#280), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1028 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen-14B: 27.6 (#299), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1051 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1028 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1022 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen-14B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen-14B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen-14B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen-14B has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.