Model comparison
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 3.2× 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. Qwen3.6 27B scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 1 category; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 42.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 35.1% for Qwen3.6 27B and 22.5% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.2 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 1M |
| Max output | 66K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.60 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 11 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | 20% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 7% | 18% |
| DTBench | 78.1% | 77.1% |
| LMCA | 34.5% | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.5 | 143.26 |
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| CritPt | 0.9% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 35.1% | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.1% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1026 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.6 27B better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 3.2× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 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; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.6 27B and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.6 27B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.