Model comparison
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 16.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 7.4% for Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 30.1 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2024-09 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 8K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 7 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 38.7 (#169), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 45% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 52.3% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 19.2 (#266), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 0% | 22% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 128.52 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 16.2 (#296), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 7.4% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| MATH Level 5 | 56.1% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: 24.9 (#266), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 46.1% | 85.9% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 32B Instruct | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 30.1 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen2.5 32B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen2.5 32B Instruct or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.7 vs 39.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 32B Instruct and Qwen3.6 27B share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 32B Instruct has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.