Model comparison
Qwen1.5-32B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen1.5-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 13.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 30.7% for Qwen1.5-32B and 85.9% for Qwen3.6 27B.
Side by side
| Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.5 | 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 | 21 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.7 (#282), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 32.3% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1155 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 42% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 21.8 (#212), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1130 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 33.0 (#207), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1155 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 13.5 (#296), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 30.7% | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1126 | — |
| MMLU | 74.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 31.4 (#259), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1106 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1177 | — |
| LMArena French | 1101 | — |
| LMArena German | 1058 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1027 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1008 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1073 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1089 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 57.7 (#265), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1116 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.7 (#246), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1146 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen1.5-32B: 34.2 (#271), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen1.5-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1137 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1083 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1140 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen1.5-32B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen1.5-32B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 31.7 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-32B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen1.5-32B has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.