Qwen3.5-27B vs Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.5-27B (2026) and Qwen3.6-27B (2026) compare a standalone API model against a coding-specialized model. Qwen3.5-27B ships a 262k-token context window, while Qwen3.6-27B ships a 262k-token context window. On MMLU PRO, Qwen3.6-27B leads by 0.1 pts. On pricing, Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.20/1M input tokens versus $0.32/1M for the alternative. This page treats the result as workflow and deployment fit, not a universal model winner.
Treat this as a product-type comparison: Qwen3.5-27B is standalone API model, while Qwen3.6-27B is coding-specialized model. Choose based on workflow fit before reading any benchmark or price row as decisive.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Product type | Standalone API model | Coding-specialized model |
| Best for | reasoning-heavy apps, multimodal apps, and tool-calling agents | custom coding agents, code generation, and tool loops |
| Decision fit | Coding, RAG, and Agents | Coding, RAG, and Agents |
| Context window | 262k | 262k |
| Cheapest output | $1.56/1M tokens | $3.20/1M tokens |
| Provider routes | 4 tracked | 4 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 6 shared | MMLU PRO leader |
Decision tradeoffs
- Qwen3.5-27B holds a shared-benchmark lead on Humanity's Last Exam, ahead by 0.3 points.
- Qwen3.5-27B has the lower cheapest tracked output price at $1.56/1M tokens.
- Qwen3.5-27B uniquely exposes Structured outputs in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.5-27B for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
- Qwen3.6-27B holds a shared-benchmark lead on MMLU PRO, ahead by 0.1 points.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.6-27B for Coding, RAG, and Agents.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output route or tier on this page.
Qwen3.5-27B
$546
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Qwen3.6-27B
$1,056
Cheapest tracked route/tier: OpenRouter
Estimated monthly gap: $510. Batch, cache, alternate speed tiers, and negotiated pricing are excluded from this local estimate.
Switch friction
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter, Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS, and Novita AI; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Qwen3.6-27B is $1.64/1M tokens higher on cheapest tracked output pricing, so quality gains need to justify the spend.
- Check replacement coverage for Structured outputs before moving production traffic.
- Provider overlap exists on OpenRouter, Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS, and Novita AI; start route-level A/B tests there.
- Qwen3.5-27B is $1.64/1M tokens lower on cheapest tracked output pricing before cache, batch, or negotiated discounts.
- Qwen3.5-27B adds Structured outputs in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-02-24 | 2026-04-27 |
| Context window | 262k | 262k |
| Parameters | 27B | 27B |
| Architecture | Decoder Only | Decoder Only |
| License | Apache 2.0OSI-approved | Apache 2.0OSI-approved |
| Openness | Open source | Open source |
| Weights | Available | Available |
| Code | Unknown | Unknown |
| Commercial use | Commercial use: permitted | Commercial use: permitted |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.20/1M tokens | $0.32/1M tokens |
| Output price | $1.56/1M tokens | $3.20/1M tokens |
| Providers |
Capabilities
| Capability | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | Yes |
| Multimodal | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Function calling | Yes | Yes |
| Tool use | Yes | Yes |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
| IDE integration | No | No |
| Computer use | No | No |
| Parallel agents | No | No |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-27B | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|
| MMLU PRO | 86.1 | 86.2 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.4 | 77.2 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 85.8 | 87.8 |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.7 | 83.9 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 24.3 | 24.0 |
| MMMU Pro | 75.0 | 75.8 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, MMLU PRO has Qwen3.5-27B at 86.1 and Qwen3.6-27B at 86.2, with Qwen3.6-27B ahead by 0.1 points; SWE-bench Verified has Qwen3.5-27B at 72.4 and Qwen3.6-27B at 77.2, with Qwen3.6-27B ahead by 4.8 points; Google-Proof Q&A has Qwen3.5-27B at 85.8 and Qwen3.6-27B at 87.8, with Qwen3.6-27B ahead by 2 points. The largest visible gap is 4.8 points on SWE-bench Verified, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on structured outputs: Qwen3.5-27B. Both models share vision, multimodal input, reasoning mode, and function calling, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
For cost, Qwen3.5-27B lists $0.20/1M input and $1.56/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider, while Qwen3.6-27B lists $0.32/1M input and $3.20/1M output tokens on the cheapest tracked provider. A 70/30 input-output blend puts Qwen3.5-27B lower by about $0.58 per million blended tokens. Availability is 4 providers versus 4, so concentration risk also matters.
Choose Qwen3.5-27B when vision-heavy evaluation and lower input-token cost are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.6-27B when coding workflow support are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B supports 262k tokens, while Qwen3.6-27B supports 262k tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper on tracked token pricing. Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.20/1M input and $1.56/1M output tokens. Qwen3.6-27B costs $0.32/1M input and $3.20/1M output tokens. Provider discounts or batch pricing can still change the final bill.
Is Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6-27B open source?
Qwen3.5-27B is listed under Apache 2.0. Qwen3.6-27B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for vision, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Both Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.6-27B expose vision. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Which is better for multimodal input, Qwen3.5-27B or Qwen3.6-27B?
Both Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.6-27B expose multimodal input. The better choice depends on benchmark fit, context budget, pricing, and whether your provider route exposes the same capability surface. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Where can I run Qwen3.5-27B and Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B is available on DeepInfra, OpenRouter, Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS, and Novita AI. Qwen3.6-27B is available on OpenRouter, Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS, Vercel AI Gateway, and Novita AI. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Popular comparisons for Qwen3.5-27B
Popular comparisons for Qwen3.6-27B
Last reviewed: 2026-06-29. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.