# Claude 2.1 vs Qwen3.5 27B

> Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/claude-2-1-vs-qwen3-5-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 2

## Summary

- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. Claude 2.1 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 38.8 to 10.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is WeirdML: 7.1% for Claude 2.1 and 39.5% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Anthropic | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 25.2 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 345 | 127 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | — | $2.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- Claude 2.1: 26.2 (#327)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 7.1% | 39.5% |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1427 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: —

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |

## Reasoning

- Claude 2.1: 21.4 (#221)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| DTBench | 51% | 82.4% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1414 |
| LMCA | — | 34% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.27 | — |
| ForecastBench | 54.2 | — |

## Math

- Claude 2.1: 10.2 (#315)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.9% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1429 |

## Knowledge

- Claude 2.1: 15.4 (#292)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 33% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1428 |
| MMLU | 73.5% | — |

## Multimodal

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1241 |

## Multilingual

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1478 |
| LMArena French | — | 1410 |
| LMArena German | — | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1407 |

## Instruction Following

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1393 |

## Long Context

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1413 |

## Writing & Preference

- Claude 2.1: —
- Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

| Benchmark | Claude 2.1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1410 |

## FAQ

### Is Claude 2.1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 25.2 on the Noometry Index.

### Is Claude 2.1 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.9 versus 26.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do Claude 2.1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

2 benchmarks have published results for both models. Claude 2.1 has 7 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.