Model comparison
Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.1 to 38.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is DTBench: 82.4% for Qwen3.5 27B and 77.1% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.9 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.30 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $2.40 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 28 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | 349.45 | 326.4 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1358 | — |
| WeirdML | 39.5% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1427 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: —, Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | 201.98 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 82.4% | 77.1% |
| LMCA | 34% | 31% |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 47.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| Thematic Generalization | 45.5% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1414 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |
Math Too close to call
Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 56.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1429 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 12.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1428 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1241 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1478 | — |
| LMArena French | 1410 | — |
| LMArena German | 1393 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1345 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1390 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1407 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1393 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1413 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1409 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1362 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1410 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5 27B better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 2.0× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 27B or Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
3 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.