Model comparison
Qwen3.5-9B vs Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.5-9B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 34.8.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
Side by side
| Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.8 | 42.2 |
| Released | 2026-02-23 | 2026-04-22 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.10 | $0.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $0.15 | $3.60 |
| Results tracked | 10 | 11 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 27.5% | 37.3% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151), Qwen3.6 27B: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 9.2% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.3% | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 12% | 22% |
| DTBench | 71.2% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 24.5% | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 139.46 | 146.5 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 61.7% | 91.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 48.5% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79% | 85.9% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.5-9B: —, Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-9B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.5-9B better than Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 12× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-9B or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen3.5-9B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Both accept 262K tokens.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.5-9B and Qwen3.6 27B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.5-9B has 10 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.