Skip to main content

Qwen3.5 397B vs Qwen3.6-27B

Head-to-head comparison across 4benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.

Qwen3.5 397B

66

VS

Qwen3.6-27B

72

2 categoriesvs2 categories

Verified leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5 397B #11 · Qwen3.6-27B #10

Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Category Radar

Head-to-Head by Category

Category Breakdown

Agentic

Qwen3.6-27B
56.2vs59.3

+3.1 difference

Coding

Qwen3.6-27B
60.3vs70.6

+10.3 difference

Knowledge

Qwen3.5 397B
65.2vs62.2

+3.0 difference

Multimodal

Qwen3.5 397B
79vs75.8

+3.2 difference

Operational Comparison

Qwen3.5 397B

Qwen3.6-27B

Price (per 1M tokens)

$0 / $0

$0 / $0

Speed

96 t/s

N/A

Latency (TTFT)

2.44s

N/A

Context Window

128K

262K

Quick Verdict

Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if multimodal & grounded is the priority or you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model.

Qwen3.6-27B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 66. 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 70.6 against 60.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 52.5% to 59.3%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in multimodal & grounded, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

Qwen3.6-27B is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, Qwen3.5 397B or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 66. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 52.5% and 59.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.5 397B or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.2 versus 62.2. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5 397B or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.6 versus 60.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5 397B or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.3 versus 56.2. Inside this category, Claw-Eval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Qwen3.5 397B or Qwen3.6-27B?

Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 75.8. Inside this category, MMMU-Pro 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.

Qwen3.5 397B
API / mo$0
Self-host / moN/A
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

Related Comparisons

Last updated: April 22, 2026

The AI models change fast. We track them for you.

For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.