Noometry

Model comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs QwQ-32B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

QwQ-32B Alibaba (Qwen)

39.8

Rank #159 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 6 categories and QwQ-32B in 2 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 41.0 to 23.7.

Side by side

Qwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)Alibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index46.039.8
Released2026-08-142024-11-28
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.04—
Output $ / M tokens$2.30—
Results tracked3136

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 50.5 (#44), QwQ-32B: 35.4 (#226)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Coding14821333
Aider Polyglot—20.9%
LMArena WebDev1593—
SciCode46.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—44.6%
LiveBench Coding—72.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—54.4%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
APEX-Agents47.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54), QwQ-32B: 23.7 (#174)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Hard Prompts14601325
Epoch Capabilities Index149.38137.6
ARC-AGI-242.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)54.5%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt5.4%—
Chess Puzzles—5%
LiveBench Reasoning—83.5%
DTBench88%—
LiveBench Data Analysis—65%
LMCA41.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench45%—
ForecastBench—58.3
LiveBench—72%

Math Too close to call

Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161), QwQ-32B: 38.0 (#143)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Math14561359
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—59.2%
ProofBench16%—
LiveBench Math—77.8%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109), QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#158)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Expert14821324
GPQA Diamond—65.3%
Confabulations—15.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37), QwQ-32B: —

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Vision1271—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60), QwQ-32B: 44.8 (#176)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Non-English14301305
LMArena Chinese15041378
LMArena French14651336
LMArena German14381313
LMArena Japanese13841262
LMArena Korean13931279
LMArena Russian14151297
LMArena Spanish14481354

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53), QwQ-32B: 72.6 (#137)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Instruction Following14391297
LiveBench Instruction Following—81.8%

Long Context QwQ-32B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70), QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Longer Query14501308
Fiction.LiveBench—83.3%

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43), QwQ-32B: 50.6 (#180)

BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BQwQ-32B
LMArena Text14411329
LMArena Creative Writing13841288
EQ-Bench Creative Writing16711257
LMArena Multi-Turn14411314
Short-Story Creative Writing—80.2%
LiveBench Language—51.4%

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than QwQ-32B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 39.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen3.8 27B or QwQ-32B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 35.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and QwQ-32B share?

19 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 31 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.

Related comparisons

Go deeper