Model comparison
Qwen3.8 27B vs Wizardlm 13b
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 10 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)
MicrosoftSummary
- They share 10 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 7 categories and Wizardlm 13b in 0 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 30.7.
Side by side
| Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Microsoft |
| Noometry Index | 45.3 | 30.8 |
| Released | 2026-08-14 | — |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| Context window | 262K | — |
| Max output | 33K | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.99 | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.49 | — |
| Results tracked | 28 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42), Wizardlm 13b: 29.6 (#293)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1487 | 1035 |
| LMArena WebDev | 1592 | — |
| SciCode | 46.6% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71), Wizardlm 13b: 18.5 (#265)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1459 | 1018 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 54.5% | — |
| CritPt | 5.4% | — |
| DTBench | 88% | — |
| LMCA | 41.4% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 45% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 149.38 | — |
Math Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139), Wizardlm 13b: 27.8 (#235)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1453 | 1017 |
| ProofBench | 16% | — |
Knowledge Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1482 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36), Wizardlm 13b: —
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1270 | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54), Wizardlm 13b: 27.3 (#272)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1431 | 1034 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1504 | 1023 |
| LMArena French | 1468 | — |
| LMArena German | 1435 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1392 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1421 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1444 | — |
Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54), Wizardlm 13b: 53.7 (#280)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1436 | 1049 |
Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66), Wizardlm 13b: 32.0 (#268)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1448 | 1054 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads
Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41), Wizardlm 13b: 30.7 (#282)
| Benchmark | Qwen3.8 27B | Wizardlm 13b |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1441 | 1077 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1382 | 1090 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1443 | 1047 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1671 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Wizardlm 13b?
Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.
Is Qwen3.8 27B or Wizardlm 13b better for coding?
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 29.6 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Wizardlm 13b share?
10 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 28 scored results on Noometry and Wizardlm 13b has 10.