Model comparison
Qwen3.6 27B vs Sonar
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
PerplexitySummary
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 33.7.
- Sonar is cheaper at $1 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Perplexity |
| Noometry Index | 42.2 | 38.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-22 | 2024-01-01 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 128K |
| Max output | 66K | 4K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.60 | $1 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $3.60 | $1 |
| Results tracked | 11 | 7 |
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), Sonar: 35.7 (#221)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 37.3% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 35.1% |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153), Sonar: 21.1 (#227)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| CritPt | 0.9% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 22% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 46.3% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 7% | — |
| DTBench | 78.1% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 37.9% |
| LMCA | 34.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.5 | — |
| LiveBench | — | 46.9% |
Math Qwen3.6 27B leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62), Sonar: 33.7 (#200)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 35.1% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 91.1% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 41.6% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63), Sonar: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 85.9% | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Qwen3.6 27B: —, Sonar: 71.4 (#150)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 76.2% |
Writing & Preference Sonar leads
Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181), Sonar: 52.6 (#167)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Sonar |
|---|---|---|
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1026 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 44.1% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.6 27B better than Sonar?
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 38.5 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 27B or Sonar?
Sonar is cheaper. It lists at $1 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.
Is Qwen3.6 27B or Sonar better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 35.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.6 27B and Sonar share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.6 27B has 11 scored results on Noometry and Sonar has 7.