Model comparison
Grok Code Fast 1 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: Grok Code Fast 1 #180 (Supported); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Grok Code Fast 1 and Qwen3.6-27B share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to Grok Code Fast 1; 42 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- Grok Code Fast 1 only
- 0
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 42
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Grok Code Fast 1 only becomes the better choice if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.
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 38.64. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-27B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 77.5 against 70.8. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 70.8% to 77.2%.
Grok Code Fast 1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.20 input / $1.50 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Grok Code Fast 1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for Grok Code Fast 1.
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 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Δ | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | Grok Code Fast 170.8 | Margin→ 6.7 | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Agentic | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Knowledge | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Math | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | Grok Code Fast 1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 70.8%B 77.2%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 6.4SWE-bench Verified: Grok Code Fast 1 scored 70.8%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Grok Code Fast 1$0.2 input / $1.5 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Grok Code Fast 1172 tok/s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Grok Code Fast 12.81 s | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Grok Code Fast 1256K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 75.7% | 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 |
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 70.8% | 77.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 36.2% | 39.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| 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
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 21.6% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 72.7% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.5% | 21.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -36.0% | -19.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 23.8% | 19.2% | Grok Code Fast 1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 78.5% | 48.3% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Grok Code Fast 1 | 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 | Grok Code Fast 1 | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 41.4% | 67.6% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 38.64. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 70.8% and 77.2%.
Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 70.8. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified 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
Explore More
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.