Model comparison

Qwen3.8 27B vs Yi-1.5-34B

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

Qwen3.8 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

46.0

Rank #68 Confirmed

Yi-1.5-34B 01.AI

30.6

Rank #289 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. Qwen3.8 27B scores higher in 8 categories and Yi-1.5-34B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.8 to 37.4.

Side by side

Qwen3.8 27B and Yi-1.5-34B specifications
Qwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
ProviderAlibaba (Qwen)01.AI
Noometry Index46.030.6
Released2026-08-142024-05-13
WeightsOpenOpen
Context window262K—
Max output33K—
Input $ / M tokens$0.99—
Output $ / M tokens$1.49—
Results tracked3121

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), Yi-1.5-34B: 32.4 (#272)

Coding benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Coding14821169
LMArena WebDev1593—
SciCode46.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.9%
BigCodeBench Complete—43.8%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 32.9 (#57), Yi-1.5-34B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
APEX-Agents47.5%—

Reasoning Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.0 (#54), Yi-1.5-34B: 22.5 (#191)

Reasoning benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Hard Prompts14601160
ARC-AGI-242.4%—
NYT Connections (extended)54.5%—
ARC-AGI-187.5%—
CritPt5.4%—
DTBench88%—
LMCA41.4%—
Surface Evolver Bench45%—
Epoch Capabilities Index149.38—

Math Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 37.1 (#161), Yi-1.5-34B: 27.5 (#249)

Math benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Math14561182
ProofBench16%—
MATH Level 5—25.5%

Knowledge Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.6 (#109), Yi-1.5-34B: 14.8 (#295)

Knowledge benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Expert14821144
GPQA Diamond—32%

Multimodal Not comparable

Qwen3.8 27B: 41.3 (#37), Yi-1.5-34B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Vision1271—

Multilingual Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 53.7 (#60), Yi-1.5-34B: 32.3 (#256)

Multilingual benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Non-English14301121
LMArena Chinese15041213
LMArena French14651156
LMArena German14381111
LMArena Japanese13841021
LMArena Korean13931005
LMArena Russian14151091
LMArena Spanish14481121

Instruction Following Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#53), Yi-1.5-34B: 59.2 (#257)

Instruction Following benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Instruction Following14391139

Long Context Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#70), Yi-1.5-34B: 34.6 (#248)

Long Context benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Longer Query14501143

Writing & Preference Qwen3.8 27B leads

Qwen3.8 27B: 65.8 (#43), Yi-1.5-34B: 37.4 (#257)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
BenchmarkQwen3.8 27BYi-1.5-34B
LMArena Text14411173
LMArena Creative Writing13841135
LMArena Multi-Turn14411153
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1671—

Frequently asked questions

Is Qwen3.8 27B better than Yi-1.5-34B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 46.0 to 30.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is Qwen3.8 27B or Yi-1.5-34B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.5 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do Qwen3.8 27B and Yi-1.5-34B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. Qwen3.8 27B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Yi-1.5-34B has 21.

Related comparisons

Go deeper