Model comparison

Qwen3.5 27B vs Wizardlm 13b

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Wizardlm 13b Microsoft

31.4

Rank #274 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5 27B scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 59.3 to 30.5.

Side by side

Qwen3.5 27B and Wizardlm 13b specifications
Qwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Microsoft
Noometry Index41.931.4
Released2026-02-23—
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output66K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.30—
Output $ / M tokens$2.40—
Results tracked2810

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), Wizardlm 13b: 30.1 (#298)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Coding14271035
LMArena WebDev1358—
WeirdML39.5%—
ALE-Bench349.45—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: —, Wizardlm 13b: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
Vending-Bench 2201.98—

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117), Wizardlm 13b: 19.4 (#259)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Hard Prompts14141018
NYT Connections (extended)47.9%—
Thematic Generalization45.5%—
DTBench82.4%—
LMCA34%—

Math Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127), Wizardlm 13b: 30.2 (#238)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Math14291017
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions56.7%—

Knowledge Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150), Wizardlm 13b: —

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
Vectara Hallucination Rate12.1%—
LMArena Expert1428—

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59), Wizardlm 13b: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Vision1241—

Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115), Wizardlm 13b: 27.1 (#277)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Non-English13901034
LMArena Chinese14781023
LMArena French1410—
LMArena German1393—
LMArena Japanese1345—
LMArena Korean1358—
LMArena Russian1390—
LMArena Spanish1407—

Instruction Following Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119), Wizardlm 13b: 53.5 (#285)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Instruction Following13931048

Long Context Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#273)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Longer Query14131054

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads

Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111), Wizardlm 13b: 30.5 (#287)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.5 27BWizardlm 13b
LMArena Text14091077
LMArena Creative Writing13621091
LMArena Multi-Turn14101047

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.5 27B better than Wizardlm 13b?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen3.5 27B or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 30.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5 27B and Wizardlm 13b share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.

Related comparisons

Go deeper