Model comparison
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 35.5.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 38.8 | 42.2 |
| Released | — | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | 262K |
| Max output | — | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Too close to call
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| LMArena Coding | 1314 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1299 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 146.5 |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1298 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1289 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1265 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1314 | — |
| LMArena German | 1231 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1207 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1271 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1275 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1292 | — |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1299 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1262 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1299 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
They score almost the same on coding (38.5 vs 39.1); test both on your own repository before choosing.
How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 and Qwen3.6 27B share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.