Model comparison
Exaone 4.0 32B vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Exaone 4.0 32B #170 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Exaone 4.0 32B and Qwen3.6-27B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Exaone 4.0 32B; 42 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Exaone 4.0 32B only
- 1
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 42
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Exaone 4.0 32B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.82 to 40.44. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 128K for Exaone 4.0 32B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | Exaone 4.0 32B | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Exaone 4.0 32B81.8 | Margin← 28.5 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Agentic | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Math | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Exaone 4.0 32BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
MMLU-Pro
KnowledgeA 81.8%B 86.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 4.4MMLU-Pro: Exaone 4.0 32B scored 81.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Exaone 4.0 32BNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Exaone 4.0 32B128K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 4.1% | 94.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-SciCodeSource | 25.2% | 39.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
KnowledgeExaone 4.0 32B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 81.8% | 86.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 6.0% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 62.8% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 4.9% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -62.3% | -19.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 10.4% | 19.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 81.0% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Exaone 4.0 32B | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 33.5% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 40.44. The biggest single separator in this matchup is MMLU-Pro, where the scores are 81.8% and 86.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Exaone 4.0 32B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Exaone 4.0 32B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.8 versus 53.3. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
Related Comparisons
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.