Model comparison

Qwen1.5-7B vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen1.5-7B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 29.6.

Side by side

Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Qwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.441.9
Released2024-02-042026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked1328

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding11071427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen1.5-7B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts10651414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math10801429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert10551428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%
MMLU62.6%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen1.5-7B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English10581390
LMArena Chinese11411478
LMArena Russian10061390
LMArena French—1410
LMArena German—1393
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1358
LMArena Spanish—1407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following10581393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query10901413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen1.5-7BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text10831409
LMArena Creative Writing10351362
LMArena Multi-Turn10621410

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen1.5-7B better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen1.5-7B or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen1.5-7B and Qwen3.5 27B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen1.5-7B has 13 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper