# Qwen2.5-Coder-32B vs Qwen3.6 27B

> Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/qwen2-5-coder-32b-vs-qwen3-6-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 1

## Summary

- They share 1 benchmark with published results for both. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 33.4.
- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper at $0.66 / $1 per million input/output tokens, against $0.60 / $3.60 for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 33K.

## Snapshot

| | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Alibaba (Qwen) | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 33.4 | 42.2 |
| Rank | 245 | 117 |
| Context | 33K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $0.66 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $1 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Open | Open |

## Coding

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 22.6 (#333)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 9% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 16.4% | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 49% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 56.9% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1276 | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 58% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 87.2% | — |
| MBPP+ | 77% | — |

## Reasoning

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 21.2 (#225)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 119.49 | 146.5 |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 42.1% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1251 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| DTBench | — | 78.1% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 49.9% | — |
| LMCA | — | 34.5% |
| HellaSwag | 83% | — |
| LiveBench | 46.2% | — |
| WinoGrande | 80.8% | — |

## Math

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.3 (#204)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 46.6% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1251 | — |
| GSM8K | 93% | — |

## Knowledge

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 33.4 (#203)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 85.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1221 | — |
| ARC (AI2) Challenge | 70.5% | — |
| MMLU | 79.1% | — |

## Multilingual

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 37.8 (#235)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1205 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1222 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1228 | — |

## Instruction Following

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 61.4 (#245)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 58.7% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1223 | — |

## Long Context

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 38.0 (#208)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1251 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- Qwen2.5-Coder-32B: 41.6 (#240)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

| Benchmark | Qwen2.5-Coder-32B | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1230 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1174 | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1222 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 23.3% | — |

## FAQ

### Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 33.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B costs 1.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when Qwen3.6 27B's lead doesn't matter for your workload.

### Which is cheaper, Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen2.5-Coder-32B is cheaper. It lists at $0.66 per million input tokens and $1 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B lists at $0.60 and $3.60.

### Is Qwen2.5-Coder-32B or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 39.1 versus 22.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 33K.

### How many benchmarks do Qwen2.5-Coder-32B and Qwen3.6 27B share?

1 benchmark has published results for both models. Qwen2.5-Coder-32B has 31 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.