Model comparison
Qwen Turbo vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen Turbo scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 15.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 6.1% for Qwen Turbo and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen Turbo is cheaper at $0.05 / $0.20 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen Turbo accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 27.1 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2024-11-01 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 1M | 262K |
| Max output | 16K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.05 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
Reasoning Not comparable
Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen Turbo: 15.3 (#297), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 6.1% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.2% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen Turbo: 22.2 (#272), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 41.8% | 85.9% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen Turbo: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen Turbo | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen Turbo better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 27.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Turbo costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen Turbo or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen Turbo is cheaper. It lists at $0.05 per million input tokens and $0.20 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Turbo does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen Turbo and Qwen3.6 27B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen Turbo has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.