Model comparison

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 Alibaba (Qwen)

38.1

Rank #179 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.4

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 8 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.5 to 49.5.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3.5 27B specifications
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index38.141.4
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked1428

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

Category by category

Coding Too close to call

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 37.9 (#171), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.6 (#159)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding13141427
LMArena WebDev—1357
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 24.8 (#139), Qwen3.5 27B: 26.6 (#116)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts12991414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 33.5 (#175), Qwen3.5 27B: 36.8 (#103)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math12981428
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 34.9 (#179), Qwen3.5 27B: 37.4 (#149)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert12891428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 38.7 (#56)

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1240

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 42.1 (#196), Qwen3.5 27B: 51.0 (#112)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English12651390
LMArena Chinese13141478
LMArena German12311393
LMArena Japanese12071345
LMArena Russian12711389
LMArena French—1409
LMArena Korean—1359
LMArena Spanish—1408

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.4 (#194), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.7 (#114)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following12751393

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#180), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#103)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query12921413

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.5 (#186), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.5 (#106)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen2.5 Plus 1127Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text12991409
LMArena Creative Writing12621362
LMArena Multi-Turn12991410

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.4 to 38.1 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

They score almost the same on coding (37.9 vs 38.6); test both on your own repository before choosing.

How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper