Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 47 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.82/100
Margin
2.4pts
← winning
51.47/100
5 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 47 comparable benchmark results. 5 of 8 categories are comparable. 7 results are unique to Qwen3.6-27B; 10 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
47
Qwen3.6-27B only
7
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
10
Comparable categories
5 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 47 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 5 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 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 53.82 versus 51.47. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.6-27B's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 59.3 against 51.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 59.3% to 51.5%.

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 scores and score margins for Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
CategoryQwen3.6-27BΔQwen3.6-35B-A3B
AgenticQwen3.6-27B59.3Margin← 7.8Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5
CodingQwen3.6-27B77.5Margin← 3.7Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B53.3Margin← 1.9Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.4
MathQwen3.6-27B89.2Margin← 1.0Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B76.7Margin← 0.4Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · Qwen3.6-27BB · Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 59.3%B 51.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 7.8
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: Qwen3.6-27B scored 59.3%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 51.5%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Pro

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 53.5%B 49.5%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 4
    SWE-bench Pro: Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  3. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 73.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 3.8
    SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 73.4%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  4. LiveCodeBench

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 83.9%B 80.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 3.5
    LiveCodeBench: Qwen3.6-27B scored 83.9%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 80.4%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  5. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 24%B 21.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 2.6
    HLE: Qwen3.6-27B scored 24%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 21.4%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.6-27BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.6-27BNot availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.6-27B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KListed context windows are equal.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%51.5%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Claw-EvalSource 72.4%68.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
QwenClawBenchSource 53.4%52.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
QwenWebBenchSource 14871397Qwen3.6-27B leads
AndroidWorldSource 70.3%—Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.0%21.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
τ²-bench resultsSource 94.2%95.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
GDPval-AASource 32.0%27.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
GDPval-AASource 11401049Qwen3.6-27B leads
Gert LabsSource 54.84%42.65%Qwen3.6-27B leads
τ³-bench resultsSource —67.2%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —35.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —25.9%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource —26.9%Not comparable
MCP AtlasSource —62.8%Not comparable
WideResearchSource —60.1%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%73.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
SWE MultilingualSource 71.3%67.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
SWE-bench ProSource 53.5%49.5%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 59.3%51.5%Qwen3.6-27B leads
LiveCodeBenchSource 83.9%80.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
NL2RepoSource 36.2%29.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA Coding IndexSource 53.7%41.9%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-SciCodeSource 39.8%35.8%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Reasoning
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource 68.7%63.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CritPtSource 1.1%0.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.2%85.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 93.5%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 66%64.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
C-EvalSource 91.4%90%Qwen3.6-27B leads
GPQASource 87.8%86%Qwen3.6-27B leads
HLESource 24%21.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 37.0%31.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 84.2%84.1%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-HLESource 21.6%20.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -19.8%-21.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 19.2%18.9%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 48.3%49.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MathQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
HMMT Feb 2025Source 93.8%90.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
HMMT Nov 2025Source 90.7%89.1%Qwen3.6-27B leads
HMMT Feb 2026Source 84.3%83.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMAnswerBenchSource 80.8%78.9%Qwen3.6-27B leads
AIME26Source 94.1%92.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
MMMUSource 82.9%81.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMMU-ProSource 75.8%75.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
RealWorldQASource 84.1%85.3%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
DynaMathSource 85.6%—Not comparable
MStarSource 81.4%—Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 56.1%58.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
CharXivSource 78.4%78%Qwen3.6-27B leads
CC-OCRSource 81.2%81.9%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
CountBenchSource 97.8%—Not comparable
RefCOCO (avg)Source 92.5%92.0%Qwen3.6-27B leads
ERQASource 62.5%—Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source 87.7%86.6%Qwen3.6-27B leads
VideoMMMUSource 84.4%83.7%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MLVU (M-Avg)Source 86.6%86.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
V*Source 94.7%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 74.6%75.0%Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —89.9%Not comparable
AI2D_TESTSource —92.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —50.8%Not comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source —82.5%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BQwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 67.6%64.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Frequently Asked Questions (6)

Which is better, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 51.47. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 59.3% and 51.5%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 53.3 versus 51.4. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 73.8. Inside this category, AA Coding Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 88.2. Inside this category, HMMT Feb 2025 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 59.3 versus 51.5. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 76.7 versus 76.3. Inside this category, SimpleVQA 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.

Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Model the full break-even

Related Comparisons

Explore More

Alibaba Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 2026

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.