Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
xAI logo
Model A
Grok Code Fast 1

xAI

37.21/100

Supported · Public rank #206

90% interval 34.340.1

Grok Code Fast 1 vs Qwen3.6-27B

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3.6-27B

Alibaba

52.73/100

Estimated · Public rank #120

90% interval 47.058.5

Decision reading

Qwen3.6-27B has the higher public score, 52.73 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3.6-27B

    Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok Code Fast 1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
Grok Code Fast 1 only
0
Qwen3.6-27B only
37
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

3 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
32.5
Estimated · #163/183
Qwen3.6-27B
42.6
Supported · #128/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
39.1
Estimated · #144/181
Qwen3.6-27B
49.0
Estimated · #95/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only
Grok Code Fast 1
48.2
#83/120
Qwen3.6-27B
82.2
#50/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-27B
33.9
Supported · #133/151
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 6 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
57.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.6-27B
73.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-27B
72.8
Unranked · 5 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-27B
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
Grok Code Fast 1
Not ranked
Qwen3.6-27B
51.5
#35/48
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.00095
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.0145
Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request

Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

Grok Code Fast 1
$0.059
Fits in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3.6-27B
Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

Grok Code Fast 1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

Grok Code Fast 1

256K

Qwen3.6-27B

262K

API model ID

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

Grok Code Fast 1

Not published

Qwen3.6-27B

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Documented outputs

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Provider availability

Grok Code Fast 1

Not sourced

Qwen3.6-27B

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

Grok Code Fast 1

Non-Reasoning

Qwen3.6-27B

Reasoning

Weight access

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

License

Grok Code Fast 1

Proprietary

Qwen3.6-27B

Open Weight

Release date

Grok Code Fast 1

2025-08-28

Qwen3.6-27B

2026-04-21

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
Qwen3.6-27B has the higher public score, 52.73 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented window (262K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Self-host vs API cost

Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.

Grok Code Fast 1
API / mo$1,275
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even
Model the full break-even

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence38 rows

Agentic

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Claw-Eval

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B72.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenClawBench

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B53.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • QwenWebBench

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B1487
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AndroidWorld

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B70.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Gert Labs

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B54.84%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    Grok Code Fast 170.8%
    Source
    Qwen3.6-27B77.2%
    Source

    Qwen3.6-27B leads this result

  • SWE Multilingual

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B71.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SWE-bench Pro

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B53.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B59.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B83.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • NL2Repo

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B36.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B86.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B93.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B66%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • C-Eval

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B91.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B87.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HLE

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B24%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • HMMT Feb 2025

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B93.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Nov 2025

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B90.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B84.3%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMAnswerBench

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B80.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B94.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Multimodal

  • MMMU

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B82.9%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MMMU-Pro

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B75.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RealWorldQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B84.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • DynaMath

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B85.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MStar

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B81.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • SimpleVQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B56.1%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CharXiv

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B78.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CC-OCR

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B81.2%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • CountBench

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B97.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • RefCOCO (avg)

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B92.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • ERQA

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B62.5%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • Video-MME (with subtitle)

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B87.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • VideoMMMU

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B84.4%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • MLVU (M-Avg)

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B86.6%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • V*

    Grok Code Fast 1
    Qwen3.6-27B94.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the higher public score, 52.73 versus 37.21, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B scores higher for coding on the public lane, 42.6 to 32.5. Grok Code Fast 1 is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Grok Code Fast 1 is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, Grok Code Fast 1 or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the larger documented context window: 262K, compared with 256K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch Grok Code Fast 1 vs Qwen3.6-27B

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.