Skip to main content
BenchLM
Data

Data as of November 12, 2026 · How the score is built

Qwen3.5-27B

EstablishedOpen WeightReasoning

Decision readingQwen3.5-27B scores 47.9 out of 100 and ranks #108 of 215. This profile shows 21 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #10. Published weights can be self-hosted, but infrastructure cost varies and is not a comparable API token rate.

Email me when its price, rank or availability changes.

Capability

47.9/100

field median 49.4#108 of 215 ranked models

Public

#108of 215

Verified —

Price

Self-hosted; infrastructure cost varies

input median $0.60No comparable first-party hosted token rate

Speed

78tok/s

field median 92 tok/sFirst token 31.49 s

Context

262Ktokens

field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored

Voice benchmark evidence

EVA-Bench is an owner-defined voice evaluation. Its result stays separate from BenchLM's weighted text-model ranking.

Coverage
Evaluated system
Owner label
Qwen3.5-27B
Result source
Official paper
Participant or pipeline component identified from the benchmark paper; no weighted BenchLM score is assigned.

Decision snapshot

Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.

Strongest published evidence

Multilingual ranks #10. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Validate before choosing

21 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. No comparable first-party API token rate is published.

Source-linked · 21 displayable benchmark rows

Is Qwen3.5-27B right for your job?

Its place on the LLM Selector’s job rankings, the same order the job pages publish. Describe your own job to see where it stands for that.

Describe the task and constraints. This selector recommends models; it cannot carry out the task or access your files and accounts.

We keep what you type here, drafts included, for 180 days, and after that only the job and requirements read from it. Nothing is tied to your IP address or account. Leave out names and other personal details. Privacy

Category score record

Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.

Category scores, ranks, weighting, benchmark coverage, and evidence status
CategoryScore
AgenticRank #85 of 135Percentile 37thWeight 22%4 benchmarksVerified
36.8
CodingRank #100 of 162Percentile 39thWeight 20%4 benchmarksVerified
33.1
ReasoningRank #81 of 160Percentile 50thWeight 17%1 benchmarkVerified
39.3
MultimodalRank #58 of 67Percentile 14thWeight 12%6 benchmarksMixed sources
50.5
KnowledgeRank #96 of 180Percentile 47thWeight 12%3 benchmarksVerified
45.1
MultilingualRank #10 of 17Percentile 44thWeight 7%1 benchmarkVerified
87.1
Inst. FollowingRank #15 of 157Percentile 91stWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified
92.9
MathWeight 5%0 benchmarksNot measured
Not measured

21 of 906 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100

Coverage details

How much of this is verified

Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.

  1. Agentic4/4 verified
  2. Coding4/4 verified
  3. Reasoning1/1 verified
  4. Multimodal4/6 verified
  5. Knowledge3/3 verified
  6. Multilingual1/1 verified
  7. Inst. Following1/1 verified
  8. MathNot measured
Verified sourceProvisionalNot measured

Capability shape

Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.

Qwen3.5-27B category percentile values

  • Agentic37th percentile
  • Coding39th percentile
  • Reasoning50th percentile
  • Multimodal14th percentile
  • Knowledge47th percentile
  • Multilingual44th percentile
  • Instruction following91st percentile
  • MathNot eligible

The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.

Eligible category ranks

  1. Agentic#85/135
  2. Coding#100/162
  3. Reasoning#81/160
  4. Multimodal#58/67
  5. Knowledge#96/180
  6. Multilingual#10/17
  7. Inst. Following#15/157
  8. MathNot ranked
Top decileTop quartileMid-fieldNot eligible

Benchmark ledger

Every result says who ran the test. For this model, Alibaba ran 16 of 21. Coding opens by default. The tick marks the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference.

Overall rank
#108
of 215 on the leaderboard
Reported by Alibaba
16
Shown with that label
Run by a benchmark
3
The benchmark’s own run
Independent runs
0
None yet
Carried from upstream
2
Not yet matched to its table
Coding4 rows
Coding benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
SWE-Rebench58.9%

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.6 · 65.3%

Gap6.4 behindRun by SWE-RebenchCounts5% ref. weight
SWE-bench VerifiedSoftware Engineering Benchmark Verified72.4%

Best verified: Claude Opus 5 · 96%

Gap23.6 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
LiveCodeBench v680.7%

Best verified: Sakana Fugu-Ultra · 93.2%

Gap12.5 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
Terminal-Bench 2.041.6%

Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82.0%

Gap40.4 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
Agentic4 rows
Agentic benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
BrowseComp61%

Best verified: Atria Dawn Preview · 92.5%

Gap31.5 behindReported by AlibabaCounts9% ref. weight
OSWorld-Verified56.2%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 86.1%

Gap29.9 behindReported by AlibabaCounts8% ref. weight
Terminal-Bench 2.041.6%

Best verified: GPT-5.5 · 82%

Gap40.4 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
Gert LabsGert Labs Composite Game Benchmark39.41%

Best verified: Claude Opus 4.8 · 72.97%

Gap33.6 behindRun by Gert LabsShown only
Reasoning1 row
Reasoning benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
LongBench v260.6%

Best verified: Inkling 2 Small · 70.6%

Gap10 behindReported by AlibabaCounts5% ref. weight
Multimodal6 rows
Multimodal benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
MMMU-ProMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding Pro75%

Best verified: GPT-6.1 Terra · 85.5%

Gap10.5 behindReported by AlibabaCounts30% ref. weight
CharXivCharXiv Reasoning79.5%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 93.5%

Gap14 behindReported by AlibabaCounts17% ref. weight
MMMUMassive Multi-discipline Multimodal Understanding82.3%

Best verified: Qwen3.5 397B · 85.0%

Gap2.7 behindCarried from an upstream pageShown only
MMVUMultimodal Multi-disciplinary Video Understanding73.3%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 82.4%

Gap9.1 behindCarried from an upstream pageShown only
MathVision86.0%

Best verified: Qwen3.8 Max · 95.2%

Gap9.2 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
V*93.7%

Best verified: Kimi K2.6 · 96.9%

Gap3.2 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
Knowledge3 rows
Knowledge benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
MMLU-ProMassive Multitask Language Understanding Professional86.1%

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 89.6%

Gap3.5 behindReported by AlibabaCounts6% ref. weight
GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A85.5%

Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96%

Gap10.5 behindReported by AlibabaCounts3% ref. weight
SuperGPQASuperGPQA: Scaling LLM Evaluation Across 285 Graduate Disciplines65.6%

Best verified: Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) · 73.9%

Gap8.3 behindReported by AlibabaCounts2% ref. weight
Multilingual1 row
Multilingual benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
MMLU-ProX82.2%

Best verified: Qwen3.7 Max · 87%

Gap4.8 behindReported by AlibabaCountsWeighted 100%
Inst. Following1 row
Inst. Following benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval95%

Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8%

Gap1.8 behindReported by AlibabaShown only
External signals1 row
External signals benchmark results, best verified comparison, who ran each test, and whether it counts toward a rank
NYT ConnectionsNYT Connections LLM Benchmark (extended version)47.9%

Best verified: Gemini 4 Argon · 98.6%

Gap50.7 behindRun by NYT ConnectionsShown only

Outlined bars are lab-reported or carried from an upstream page. Filled bars are benchmark-run or independent. Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value.

Lineage

The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.

  1. Mar 4, 2026 · you are here

    Qwen3.5-27B

    Score 47.9 · Price not listed

Base entry

Spec sheet

Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.

API model ID
Not published
Context window
262K
Maximum output
Not sourced yet
Knowledge cutoff
Not sourced yet
Input modalities
text, image, videoQwen3.5-27B model card
Output modalities
textQwen3.5-27B model card
Parameters
Not sourced yet
Availability
Not sourced yet
Cloud regions
Not tracked yet
Lifecycle
Established
API capabilities
Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
Prompt caching
Not documented in the pricing record
Self-host
Open weights available; hardware estimate not sourced
Rate limits
Not tracked yet

How to read this profile

The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #108 of 215 on the public leaderboard with a score of 47.94/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.

Qwen3.5-27B is a open weight model with a 262K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.

Official exact-value benchmark snapshot from the Qwen/Qwen3.5-27B-FP8 model card. Native context is 262,144 tokens and the model card notes extensibility up to roughly 1M tokens with RoPE scaling.

21 of 906 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.

Its strongest eligible category is Multilingual at #10, while its lowest eligible position is Coding at #100. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.

Last updated November 12, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.

Deployment options

Self-host and provider-specific paths stay separate from benchmark evidence so operating constraints are visible before a score becomes the whole decision.

Where to run Qwen3.5-27B by API

3 hosts publish a per-token price for it. Novita AI has the lowest output rate, $2.40 per million tokens. Prices read from each host’s own pages on November 11, 2026.

Inference hosts for Qwen3.5-27B with input, output and cached-input prices per million tokens.
HostInput /1MOutput /1MCached /1MContext
Novita AI$0.30$2.40—262K
DeepInfra$0.26$2.60—262K
OpenRouter$0.26$2.60—262K
Compare inference hosts

Published weights are available, but BenchLM does not yet have a sourced parameter and VRAM profile for this exact model. Hardware cost estimates stay unavailable until that sizing record is complete.

Estimate VRAM from known parameters

Questions

How does Qwen3.5-27B perform overall in AI benchmarks?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #108 out of 215 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 47.94/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 21 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for knowledge and understanding?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #96 out of 180 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 45.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for coding and programming?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #100 out of 162 eligible models for coding and programming, with a public category score of 33.1/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for reasoning and logic?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #81 out of 160 eligible models for reasoning and logic, with a public category score of 39.3/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for agentic tool use and computer tasks?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #85 out of 135 eligible models for agentic tool use and computer tasks, with a public category score of 36.8/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for multimodal and grounded tasks?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #58 out of 67 eligible models for multimodal and grounded tasks, with a public category score of 50.5/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for instruction following?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #15 out of 157 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 92.9/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B good for multilingual tasks?

Qwen3.5-27B ranks #10 out of 17 eligible models for multilingual tasks, with a public category score of 87.1/100. That places it in the current top ten for this category. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.

Is Qwen3.5-27B open source?

Qwen3.5-27B is an open-weight model from Alibaba. Its weights can be downloaded for local or hosted deployment, subject to the published license. Open weight does not automatically mean open source: training data and training code may remain private, and commercial restrictions can still apply.

Does Qwen3.5-27B have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?

No. Qwen3.5-27B currently has 34 source-displayable rows. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.

What is the context window size of Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has a reported context window of 262K in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.

Compare Qwen3.5-27B with every tracked model1030 comparisons