Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 16 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3 32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.2

Rank #172 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 5 categories; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 27.5 to 20.2.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 17.3% for Qwen3 32B and 34% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $0.70 / $2.80 for Qwen3 32B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.

Side by side

Qwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index39.241.9
Released2025-042026-02-23
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window131K262K
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$0.70$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$2.80$2.40
Results tracked2628

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding13581427
Aider Polyglot40%—
LMArena WebDev—1358
SciCode35.4%—
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard48.7%—
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13341414
DTBench67.5%82.4%
LMCA17.3%34%
Kagi LLM Benchmark54.9%—
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
CritPt0.3%—
Chess Puzzles5%—
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index138.51—

Math Too close to call

Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13991429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202566.9%—

Knowledge Qwen3 32B leads

Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
Vectara Hallucination Rate5.9%12.1%
LMArena Expert13621428
GPQA Diamond65.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3 32B: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13171390
LMArena Chinese13571478
LMArena German13411393
LMArena Russian13111390
LMArena French—1410
LMArena Japanese—1345
LMArena Korean—1358
LMArena Spanish—1407

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13051393

Long Context Too close to call

Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13271413
Fiction.LiveBench74.2%—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkQwen3 32BQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13401409
LMArena Creative Writing12971362
LMArena Multi-Turn13311410

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3 32B better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; Qwen3 32B lists at $0.70 and $2.80.

Is Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Qwen3.5 27B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper