Qwen3.5-27B vs Swallow 30B
Qwen3.5-27B (2026) and Swallow 30B (2025) are frontier reasoning models from Alibaba and Tokyo Institute of Technology. Qwen3.5-27B ships a 262K-token context window, while Swallow 30B ships a 16K-token context window. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
Qwen3.5-27B fits 16x more tokens; pick it for long-context work and Swallow 30B for tighter calls.
Decision scorecard
Local evidence first| Signal | Qwen3.5-27B | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Decision fit | RAG, Agents, and Long context | General |
| Context window | 262K | 16K |
| Cheapest output | $1.56/1M tokens | - |
| Provider routes | 3 tracked | 0 tracked |
| Shared benchmarks | 0 rows | 0 rows |
Decision tradeoffs
- Qwen3.5-27B has the larger context window for long prompts, retrieval packs, or transcript analysis.
- Qwen3.5-27B has broader tracked provider coverage for fallback and procurement flexibility.
- Qwen3.5-27B uniquely exposes Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning in local model data.
- Local decision data tags Qwen3.5-27B for RAG, Agents, and Long context.
- Use Swallow 30B when your own prompt tests beat the comparison signals; the local data does not show a decisive standalone advantage yet.
Monthly cost at traffic
Estimate token spend from the cheapest tracked input and output prices on this page.
Qwen3.5-27B
$546
Cheapest tracked route: OpenRouter
Swallow 30B
Unavailable
No complete token price in local provider data
Cost delta unavailable until both models have sourced input and output token prices.
Switch friction
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Qwen3.5-27B and Swallow 30B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Check replacement coverage for Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning before moving production traffic.
- No overlapping tracked provider route is sourced for Swallow 30B and Qwen3.5-27B; plan for SDK, billing, or endpoint changes.
- Qwen3.5-27B adds Vision, Multimodal, and Reasoning in local capability data.
Specs
| Specification | ||
|---|---|---|
| Released | 2026-02-24 | 2025-02-14 |
| Context window | 262K | 16K |
| Parameters | 27B | 30B |
| Architecture | decoder only | - |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Open Source |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| Pricing attribute | Qwen3.5-27B | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.2/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $1.56/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| Capability | Qwen3.5-27B | Swallow 30B |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | Yes | No |
| Multimodal | Yes | No |
| Reasoning | Yes | No |
| Function calling | Yes | No |
| Tool use | Yes | No |
| Structured outputs | Yes | No |
| Code execution | No | No |
Benchmarks
No shared benchmark rows are currently sourced for this pair.
Deep dive
The capability footprint differs most on vision: Qwen3.5-27B, multimodal input: Qwen3.5-27B, reasoning mode: Qwen3.5-27B, function calling: Qwen3.5-27B, tool use: Qwen3.5-27B, and structured outputs: Qwen3.5-27B. Both models share the core language-model surface, 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.
Pricing coverage is uneven: Qwen3.5-27B has $0.2/1M input tokens and Swallow 30B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 3 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose Qwen3.5-27B when reasoning depth, larger context windows, and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Swallow 30B when provider fit are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship. This keeps the decision grounded in measurable tradeoffs instead of brand-level assumptions. It also helps separate model capability from provider packaging, which can change cost and latency. For teams standardizing a stack, that distinction is often the difference between a benchmark win and a reliable deployment.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or Swallow 30B?
Qwen3.5-27B supports 262K tokens, while Swallow 30B supports 16K 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.
Is Qwen3.5-27B or Swallow 30B open source?
Qwen3.5-27B is listed under Apache 2.0. Swallow 30B is listed under Open Source. 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 Swallow 30B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the clearer documented vision signal in this comparison. If vision is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ. 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 Swallow 30B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for reasoning mode, Qwen3.5-27B or Swallow 30B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run Qwen3.5-27B and Swallow 30B?
Qwen3.5-27B is available on DeepInfra, OpenRouter, and Alibaba Cloud PAI-EAS. Swallow 30B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-05-14. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.