Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 15× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.5 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

Last verified . 1 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Flash in 2 categories; one gap is clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 38.0.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.30 / $2.40 for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.7 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 27BQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.939.9
Released2026-02-232026-07-15
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.30$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$2.40$0.13
Results tracked287

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena WebDev1358—
WeirdML39.5%—
LMArena Coding1427—
ALE-Bench349.45—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
Vending-Bench 2201.98—

Reasoning Too close to call

Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
NYT Connections (extended)47.9%43.8%
Chess Puzzles—23%
Thematic Generalization45.5%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1414—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
DTBench82.4%—
LMCA34%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—144.64

Math Too close to call

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions56.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—86.7%
LMArena Math1429—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.1%—
LMArena Expert1428—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1241—

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1390—
LMArena Chinese1478—
LMArena French1410—
LMArena German1393—
LMArena Japanese1345—
LMArena Korean1358—
LMArena Russian1390—
LMArena Spanish1407—

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1393—

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1413—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1409—
LMArena Creative Writing1362—
LMArena Multi-Turn1410—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5 27B better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 15× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5 27B lists at $0.30 and $2.40.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper