Model comparison

Qwen2.5-Max vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5-Max Alibaba (Qwen)

40.7

Rank #146 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Max scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.5 27B in 7 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 55.4.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5-Max and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Qwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.741.9
Released2025-01-252026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked2728

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen2.5-Max leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.8 (#117), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding13591427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
LiveBench Coding64.4%—
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Max: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 25.6 (#147), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13601414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
LiveBench Reasoning51.4%—
DTBench—82.4%
LiveBench Data Analysis67.9%—
LMCA—34%
Epoch Capabilities Index132.53—
LiveBench62.3%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 36.9 (#162), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13691429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
LiveBench Math58.4%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 35.3 (#186), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert13371428
Confabulations21.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5-Max: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 48.1 (#146), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13521390
LMArena Chinese13821478
LMArena French13961410
LMArena German13501393
LMArena Japanese13001345
LMArena Korean13041358
LMArena Russian13531390
LMArena Spanish13771407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 71.3 (#152), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13351393
LiveBench Instruction Following75.3%—

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 41.4 (#142), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13581413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5-Max: 55.4 (#146), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5-MaxQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13671409
LMArena Creative Writing13391362
LMArena Multi-Turn13641410
Short-Story Creative Writing72.9%—
LiveBench Language56.3%—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5-Max better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5-Max or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen2.5-Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.8 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Max and Qwen3.5 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Max has 27 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper