Model comparison
Qwen3.5 Plus vs Qwen3.6-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5 Plus #138 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Qwen3.5 Plus and Qwen3.6-27B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Qwen3.5 Plus; 54 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Qwen3.5 Plus only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 54
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 Plus only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 1M context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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 47.2. 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 mathematics, where it averages 89.2 against 16.3.
Qwen3.5 Plus is also the more expensive model on tokens at $0.40 input / $2.40 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. Qwen3.5 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.6-27B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Qwen3.5 Plus$0.4 input / $2.4 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Qwen3.5 PlusNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Qwen3.5 Plus1M | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.5 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| JobBenchSource | 18.5% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vibe Code BenchSource | 15.74% | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 37.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-27B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 21.034% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 93.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 84.3% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.8% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 94.1% | Not comparable |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5 Plus | 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 | Qwen3.5 Plus | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Qwen3.5 Plus or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 47.2.
Which is better for math, Qwen3.5 Plus or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 16.3. Qwen3.5 Plus stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.