Model comparison
Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 24 shared benchmark results across 7 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.6 Plus share 24 comparable benchmark results. 6 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to Qwen3.5-27B; 36 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 24
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 4
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 36
- Comparable categories
- 6 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 24 shared benchmark results across 7 evidence categories; 6 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 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 60.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 61.6 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 41.6% to 61.6%. Qwen3.5-27B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
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 | Qwen3.5-27B | Δ | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | Qwen3.5-27B82.7 | Margin← 25.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Inst. Following | Qwen3.5-27B95.0 | Margin← 12.7 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Agentic | Qwen3.5-27B52.0 | Margin→ 9.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Coding | Qwen3.5-27B64.9 | Margin→ 5.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Multilingual | Qwen3.5-27B82.2 | Margin→ 2.5 | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Reasoning | Qwen3.5-27B60.6 | Margin→ 1.4 | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Math | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Multimodal | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
Terminal-Bench 2.0
AgenticA 41.6%B 61.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 20Terminal-Bench 2.0: Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 61.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 72.4%B 78.8%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 6.4SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.5-27B scored 72.4%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 78.8%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
SuperGPQA
KnowledgeA 65.6%B 71.6%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 6SuperGPQA: Qwen3.5-27B scored 65.6%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 71.6%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 85.5%B 90.4%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 4.9GPQA: Qwen3.5-27B scored 85.5%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
MMLU-ProX
MultilingualA 82.2%B 84.7%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.5MMLU-ProX: Qwen3.5-27B scored 82.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 84.7%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Qwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Qwen3.5-27B262K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticQwen3.6 Plus wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | 41.6% | 61.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| BrowseCompSource | 61% | — | Not comparable |
| OSWorld-VerifiedSource | 56.2% | — | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 93.9% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Gert LabsSource | 39.41% | 50.60% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
CodingQwen3.6 Plus wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | 72.4% | 78.8% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-RebenchSource | 58.9% | — | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 39.5% | 40.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 54.5% | Not comparable |
ReasoningQwen3.6 Plus wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProSource | 86.1% | 88.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | 65.6% | 71.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| GPQASource | 85.5% | 90.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 33.8% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 85.8% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 22.2% | 25.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -42.0% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 21.0% | 26.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 79.7% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
Math7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | — | 26.207% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
MultilingualQwen3.6 Plus wins2 benchmarks
Multimodal10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | 82.3% | 86.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMVUSource | 73.3% | — | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | 86.0% | 88.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| V*Source | 93.7% | 96.9% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 75.0% | 78.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1249 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (7)
Which is better, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 60.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 41.6% and 61.6%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 versus 57.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 70.3 versus 64.9. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for reasoning, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 62 versus 60.6. Inside this category, AA-LCR is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 61.6 versus 52. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 95 versus 82.3. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for multilingual tasks, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for multilingual tasks in this comparison, averaging 84.7 versus 82.2. Inside this category, MMLU-ProX is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.