Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Plus Alibaba (Qwen)

45.3

Rank #72 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.6 27B scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Plus in 4 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.7 Plus leads 39.3 to 25.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is Mystery Game Puzzles: 7% for Qwen3.6 27B and 17% for Qwen3.7 Plus.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.60 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.7 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 262K.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

Qwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.245.3
Released2026-04-222026-06-02
WeightsOpenProprietary
Context window262K1M
Max output66K131K
Input $ / M tokens$0.60$0.40
Output $ / M tokens$3.60$1.60
Results tracked1132

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163), Qwen3.7 Plus: 36.6 (#206)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
SciCode37.3%45.5%
FrontierCode—10.2%
LMArena Coding—1473

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.6 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 21.4 (#138)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
OSWorld 2.0—2.8%

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153), Qwen3.7 Plus: 39.3 (#59)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
CritPt0.9%9.1%
Chess Puzzles22%24%
Mystery Game Puzzles7%17%
DTBench78.1%84%
LMCA34.5%37.6%
Epoch Capabilities Index146.5147.37
NYT Connections (extended)—74.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts—1460

Math Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62), Qwen3.7 Plus: 50.5 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)35.1%34.4%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202591.1%93.3%
LMArena Math—1466

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63), Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.9 (#51)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
GPQA Diamond85.9%87.9%
LMArena Expert—1467

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.6 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 41.8 (#33)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Vision—1279
LMArena Document—1444

Multilingual Not comparable

Qwen3.6 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 54.8 (#38)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Non-English—1445
LMArena Chinese—1510
LMArena French—1473
LMArena German—1471
LMArena Japanese—1413
LMArena Korean—1415
LMArena Russian—1457
LMArena Spanish—1457

Instruction Following Not comparable

Qwen3.6 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 75.8 (#52)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Instruction Following—1440

Long Context Not comparable

Qwen3.6 27B: —, Qwen3.7 Plus: 44.5 (#65)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Longer Query—1455

Writing & Preference Qwen3.7 Plus leads

Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181), Qwen3.7 Plus: 64.3 (#56)

BenchmarkQwen3.6 27BQwen3.7 Plus
LMArena Text—1455
LMArena Creative Writing—1439
EQ-Bench 41026—
LMArena Multi-Turn—1460

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.6 27B better than Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 42.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

Is Qwen3.6 27B or Qwen3.7 Plus better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

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

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.6 27B and Qwen3.7 Plus share?

10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.6 27B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Plus has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper