Model comparison
Qwen1.5-14B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 29.8.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.7 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2024-02-04 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 17 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1138 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1125 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1094 | — |
| MMLU | 68.6% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1095 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1147 | — |
| LMArena French | 1116 | — |
| LMArena German | 1043 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1019 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1046 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1085 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1102 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1113 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-14B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1128 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1091 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1110 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-14B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-14B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-14B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-14B has 17 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.