# DBRX vs Qwen3.8 27B

> Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/dbrx-vs-qwen3-8-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 17

## Summary

- They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. DBRX scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.8 27B in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where Qwen3.8 27B leads 65.9 to 33.7.

## Snapshot

| | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Databricks | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 29.0 | 45.3 |
| Rank | 307 | 64 |
| Context | — | 262K |
| Input $/M | — | $0.99 |
| Output $/M | — | $1.49 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- DBRX: 32.3 (#262)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 50.3 (#42)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1132 | 1487 |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1592 |
| SciCode | — | 46.6% |
| HumanEval+ | 70.1% | — |
| MBPP+ | 55.8% | — |

## Reasoning

- DBRX: 20.5 (#218)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 31.5 (#71)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1113 | 1459 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 54.5% |
| CritPt | — | 5.4% |
| DTBench | — | 88% |
| LMCA | — | 41.4% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 45% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 149.38 |

## Math

- DBRX: 22.3 (#265)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 35.7 (#139)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1145 | 1453 |
| ProofBench | — | 16% |
| MATH Level 5 | 11.7% | — |

## Knowledge

- DBRX: 14.9 (#289)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.9 (#105)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1076 | 1482 |
| GPQA Diamond | 32.9% | — |

## Multimodal

- DBRX: —
- Qwen3.8 27B: 40.5 (#36)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1270 |

## Multilingual

- DBRX: 29.4 (#263)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 54.0 (#54)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1071 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1068 | 1504 |
| LMArena French | 1095 | 1468 |
| LMArena German | 1057 | 1435 |
| LMArena Japanese | 990 | 1392 |
| LMArena Korean | 993 | 1389 |
| LMArena Russian | 1078 | 1421 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1064 | 1444 |

## Instruction Following

- DBRX: 57.7 (#265)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 75.8 (#54)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1112 | 1436 |

## Long Context

- DBRX: 33.7 (#253)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 44.3 (#66)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1112 | 1448 |

## Writing & Preference

- DBRX: 33.7 (#271)
- Qwen3.8 27B: 65.9 (#41)

| Benchmark | DBRX | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1119 | 1441 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1104 | 1382 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1111 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1671 |

## FAQ

### Is DBRX better than Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.3 to 29.0 on the Noometry Index.

### Is DBRX or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 50.3 versus 32.3 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do DBRX and Qwen3.8 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. DBRX has 21 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 27B has 28.