Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.5 27B vs QwQ-32B

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 7 categories and QwQ-32B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 50.6.

Side by side

Qwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.939.8
Released2026-02-232024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$2.40—
Results tracked2836

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14271333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1358—
WeirdML39.5%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%
ALE-Bench349.45—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: —, QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
Vending-Bench 2201.98—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14141325
NYT Connections (extended)47.9%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
Thematic Generalization45.5%—
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench82.4%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA34%—
Epoch Capabilities Index—137.6
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14291359
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions56.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Too close to call

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert14281324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.1%—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1241—

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English13901305
LMArena Chinese14781378
LMArena French14101336
LMArena German13931313
LMArena Japanese13451262
LMArena Korean13581279
LMArena Russian13901297
LMArena Spanish14071354

Instruction Following Too close to call

Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following13931297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14131308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14091329
LMArena Creative Writing13621288
LMArena Multi-Turn14101314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
EQ-Bench Creative Writing—1257
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

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

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

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

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

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

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper