Agentic
Like-for-like- Qwen3.6-27B
- 33.9
- Supported · #133/151
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 37.7
- Supported · #126/151
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 11 public rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.7 Plus leads · intervals overlap
Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.7 Plus
Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.
Decision reading
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 52.72, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner.
24 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
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.
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus leads on the public agentic lane, 37.7 to 33.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
Qwen3.7 Plus
Qwen3.7 Plus 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
Qwen3.7 Plus is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.
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: listed-rates
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.
14 Qwen3.6-27B only
24 Shared
28 Qwen3.7 Plus only
- Shared results
- 24
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 14
- Qwen3.7 Plus only
- 28
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 / 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.
Multimodal
Like-for-like- Qwen3.6-27B
- 51.9
- #35/48
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 72.5
- #18/48
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Qwen3.7 Plus leads
Coding
Directional only- Qwen3.6-27B
- 42.6
- Supported · #128/183
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 53.1
- Estimated · #51/183
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Knowledge
Directional only- Qwen3.6-27B
- 49.0
- Estimated · #95/181
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 56.8
- Estimated · #50/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Instruction following
Directional only- Qwen3.6-27B
- 82.2
- #50/120
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 91.1
- #17/120
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Directional only
Reasoning
Not comparable- Qwen3.6-27B
- 73.7
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 73.7
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- Qwen3.6-27B
- 72.8
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.3
- Unranked · 3 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- Qwen3.6-27B
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- 78.9
- #3/12
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | Qwen3.6-27B | Qwen3.7 Plus | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | 33.9Supported · #133/151 | 37.7Supported · #126/151 | Like-for-likeBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 11 public rows | Qwen3.7 Plus leads · intervals overlap |
| Multimodal | 51.9#35/48 | 72.5#18/48 | Like-for-likeProvisional lane · 2 vs 2 weighted rows | Qwen3.7 Plus leads |
| Coding | 42.6Supported · #128/183 | 53.1Estimated · #51/183 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Knowledge | 49.0Estimated · #95/181 | 56.8Estimated · #50/181 | Directional onlyBenchAlign lane · 6 vs 7 public rows | Directional only |
| Instruction following | 82.2#50/120 | 91.1#17/120 | Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Directional only |
| Reasoning | 73.7Unranked · 2 rankable rows | 73.7Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | 72.8Unranked · 5 rankable rows | 78.3Unranked · 3 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 78.9#3/12 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | 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.
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Agentic
HLE
Knowledge
HMMT Feb 2026
Math
CharXiv
Multimodal
LiveCodeBench
Coding
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
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- Qwen3.6-27B
- Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
- Qwen3.7 Plus
- API rate not published
- Fits in one request
- Cached-input rate unavailable
Qwen3.6-27B has no comparable published API token rate. Qwen3.7 Plus 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.
SpecificationQwen3.6-27BQwen3.7 Plus
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
Qwen3.6-27B
262K
Qwen3.7 Plus
1M
API model ID
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
Qwen3.6-27B
No comparable hosted API rate
Qwen3.7 Plus
No comparable hosted API rate
Documented inputs
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Documented outputs
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Provider availability
Qwen3.6-27B
Not sourced
Qwen3.7 Plus
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
Qwen3.6-27B
Reasoning
Qwen3.7 Plus
Reasoning
Weight access
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
License
Qwen3.6-27B
Open Weight
Qwen3.7 Plus
Proprietary
Release date
Qwen3.6-27B
2026-04-21
Qwen3.7 Plus
2026-06-03
If you already use one of these models
- Deployment change
- Both entries list Alibaba as the provider. Confirm endpoint, model ID, limits, and feature support before switching.
- Quality signal
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 52.72, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
- Workload cost
- A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
- Context tradeoff
- Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented window (1M).
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.
Qwen3.6-27B
API / mo$0
Self-host / mo$429
Break-even—
Qwen3.7 Plus
API / mo$0
Self-host / moNot listed
Break-even—
Proprietary model — self-hosting not applicable.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence66 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Claw-Eval
Qwen3.6-27B72.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus62.7%SourceQwen3.6-27B leads this result
QwenClawBench
Qwen3.6-27B53.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus61.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
QwenWebBench
Qwen3.6-27B1487SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
AndroidWorld
Qwen3.6-27B70.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus81.0%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Gert Labs
Qwen3.6-27B54.84%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
BFCL v4
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus72.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus73.2%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus45.6%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus62.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld 2.0
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus2.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus52.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
SWE-bench Verified
Qwen3.6-27B77.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus77.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SWE Multilingual
Qwen3.6-27B71.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus75.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SWE-bench Pro
Qwen3.6-27B53.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus57.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Terminal-Bench 2.0
Qwen3.6-27B59.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus70.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
LiveCodeBench
Qwen3.6-27B83.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus89.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
NL2Repo
Qwen3.6-27B36.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus41.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SciCode
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus51.3%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Knowledge
MMLU-Pro
Qwen3.6-27B86.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus88.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMLU-Redux
Qwen3.6-27B93.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus94.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
SuperGPQA
Qwen3.6-27B66%SourceQwen3.7 Plus71.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
C-Eval
Qwen3.6-27B91.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
GPQA
Qwen3.6-27B87.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
HLE
Qwen3.6-27B24%SourceQwen3.7 Plus34.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
GPQA-D
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMLU
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus89.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Math
HMMT Feb 2025
Qwen3.6-27B93.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
Qwen3.6-27B90.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
Qwen3.6-27B84.3%SourceQwen3.7 Plus92.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MMAnswerBench
Qwen3.6-27B80.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
AIME26
Qwen3.6-27B94.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
IMOAnswerBench
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus86.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Apex
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus22.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MMLU-ProX
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus58.8%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus83.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus88.8%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus84.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Multimodal
MMMU
Qwen3.6-27B82.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
Qwen3.6-27B75.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus79%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
RealWorldQA
Qwen3.6-27B84.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus86.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
DynaMath
Qwen3.6-27B85.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MStar
Qwen3.6-27B81.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
Qwen3.6-27B56.1%SourceQwen3.7 Plus81.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
CharXiv
Qwen3.6-27B78.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus85.9%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
CC-OCR
Qwen3.6-27B81.2%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
CountBench
Qwen3.6-27B97.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
Qwen3.6-27B92.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
ERQA
Qwen3.6-27B62.5%SourceQwen3.7 Plus69.8%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
Video-MME (with subtitle)
Qwen3.6-27B87.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus88.0%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
VideoMMMU
Qwen3.6-27B84.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus85.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
MLVU (M-Avg)
Qwen3.6-27B86.6%SourceQwen3.7 Plus87.4%SourceQwen3.7 Plus leads this result
V*
Qwen3.6-27B94.7%SourceQwen3.7 Plus—Not directly comparable
MathVision
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus90.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus71.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus79.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMSearch-Plus
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus41.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus91.4%SourceNot directly comparable
OCRBench V2
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus70.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
Qwen3.6-27B—Qwen3.7 Plus51.1%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the higher public score estimate, 62.29 versus 52.72, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.
Which is better for coding, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus scores higher for coding on the public lane, 53.1 to 42.6. Qwen3.7 Plus 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, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus leads the public agentic tasks lane, 37.7 to 33.9, with Supported evidence for both models, although the 90% intervals overlap.
Which costs less, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
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, Qwen3.6-27B or Qwen3.7 Plus?
Qwen3.7 Plus has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 262K.
Related comparisons
Last updated September 4, 2026
Watch Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.7 Plus
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 2,000+ readers.