Model comparison
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-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 32.9.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 32.9 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2024-09-18 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 33K | 262K |
| Max output | 29K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.66 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 31 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.4 (#328), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 16.4% | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 49% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 56.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1276 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 87.2% | — |
| MBPP+ | 77% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 20.4 (#220), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.41 | 146.47 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 42.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1251 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 49.9% | — |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| HellaSwag | 83% | — |
| LiveBench | 46.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.8% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 30.8 (#203), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
| GSM8K | 93% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 32.9 (#200), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1221 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 70.5% | — |
| MMLU | 79.1% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#230), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1205 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1228 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.6 (#240), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1223 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.9 (#204), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1251 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.8 (#235), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1230 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1174 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1222 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 23.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 32.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 22.4 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.