Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

Qwen3.6-27B vs ZAYA1-74B-Preview

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 4 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

53.82/100
No comparison
N/A
2 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated); ZAYA1-74B-Preview unranked (Not scored). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. Qwen3.6-27B and ZAYA1-74B-Preview share 4 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 50 results are unique to Qwen3.6-27B; 3 to ZAYA1-74B-Preview.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
4
Qwen3.6-27B only
50
ZAYA1-74B-Preview only
3
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Treat this as a split decision. Qwen3.6-27B makes more sense if coding is the priority or you need the larger 262K context window; ZAYA1-74B-Preview is the better fit if knowledge is the priority.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 4 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 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 and ZAYA1-74B-Preview finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.

Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 256K for ZAYA1-74B-Preview.

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 ZAYA1-74B-Preview
CategoryQwen3.6-27BΔZAYA1-74B-Preview
CodingQwen3.6-27B77.5Margin← 24.3ZAYA1-74B-Preview53.2
KnowledgeQwen3.6-27B53.3Margin→ 12.8ZAYA1-74B-Preview66.1
MathQwen3.6-27B89.2Margin← 12.8ZAYA1-74B-Preview76.4
AgenticQwen3.6-27B59.3MarginNo overlapZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot measured
MultimodalQwen3.6-27B76.7MarginNo overlapZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · Qwen3.6-27BB · ZAYA1-74B-Preview

  1. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 87.8%B 57.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 30.5
    GPQA: Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 57.3%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  2. SWE-bench Verified

    Coding
    Source ↗
    A 77.2%B 53.2%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 24
    SWE-bench Verified: Qwen3.6-27B scored 77.2%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 53.2%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  3. MMLU-Pro

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 86.2%B 68.1%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 18.1
    MMLU-Pro: Qwen3.6-27B scored 86.2%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 68.1%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

  4. AIME26

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 94.1%B 76.4%
    Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 17.7
    AIME26: Qwen3.6-27B scored 94.1%; ZAYA1-74B-Preview scored 76.4%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensQwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 outputZAYA1-74B-Preview$0 input / $0 outputListed prices are equal.
Generation speedtokens per secondQwen3.6-27BNot availableZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenQwen3.6-27BNot availableZAYA1-74B-PreviewNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensQwen3.6-27B262KZAYA1-74B-Preview256KQwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
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
τ²-bench AirlineSource —56.1%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 77.2%53.2%Qwen3.6-27B leads
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
LiveCodeBench v6Source —65.7%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
AA-LCRSource 68.7%—Not comparable
CritPtSource 1.1%—Not comparable
KnowledgeZAYA1-74B-Preview wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
MMLU-ProSource 86.2%68.1%Qwen3.6-27B leads
MMLU-ReduxSource 93.5%—Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 66%—Not comparable
C-EvalSource 91.4%—Not comparable
GPQASource 87.8%57.3%Qwen3.6-27B leads
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
GPQA-DSource —57.3%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-27B wins
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
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%76.4%Qwen3.6-27B leads
Multimodal
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
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. Following
BenchmarkQwen3.6-27BZAYA1-74B-PreviewResult
AA-IFBenchSource 67.6%—Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, Qwen3.6-27B or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?

Qwen3.6-27B and ZAYA1-74B-Preview are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, Qwen3.6-27B or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?

ZAYA1-74B-Preview has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 66.1 versus 53.3. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, Qwen3.6-27B or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 77.5 versus 53.2. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, Qwen3.6-27B or ZAYA1-74B-Preview?

Qwen3.6-27B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.2 versus 76.4. Inside this category, AIME26 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—
ZAYA1-74B-Preview
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 23, 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.