Model comparison
Qwen3 32B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3 32B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 40.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 66.9% for Qwen3 32B and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3 32B is cheaper at $0.70 / $2.80 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 131K.
Side by side
| Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 39.2 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2025-04 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 131K | 262K |
| Max output | 16K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.70 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.80 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 26 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3 32B: 37.7 (#190), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 35.4% | 37.3% |
| Aider Polyglot | 40% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1358 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: 32.6 (#62), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 48.7% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3 32B: 20.2 (#241), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 5% | 22% |
| DTBench | 67.5% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 17.3% | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 138.51 | 146.5 |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 54.9% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1334 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3 32B: 39.7 (#99), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 66.9% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1399 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3 32B: 40.0 (#125), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 65.7% | 85.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 5.9% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: 45.6 (#167), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1317 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1357 | — |
| LMArena German | 1341 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1311 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: 68.9 (#179), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1305 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3 32B: 43.8 (#87), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 74.2% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1327 | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3 32B leads
Qwen3 32B: 52.9 (#163), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen3 32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1340 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1297 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1331 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3 32B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 39.2 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3 32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.70 per million input tokens and $2.80 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen3 32B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 37.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3 32B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3 32B has 26 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.