Navigate
AI BENCHY
Advertise here

Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B

The average score is effectively tied at 5.5 vs 5.5. Local hardware cost was not measured, so cost comparisons are unavailable. Qwen3.8 27B is faster at 3.12s vs 10.62s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 40.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-08-15

Rank
#209
Total Output Tokens
16,156
Response Time (avg)
10.62s
Total Cost
$0.116
Rank
#211
Total Output Tokens
11,445
Response Time (avg)
3.12s
Total Cost
N/A
Recommended model Qwen3.6 27B

It has the strongest score in this comparison (5.5) and the best overall balance of cost and response time across all 2 models.

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B none Release: 2026-04-20 Qwen3.8 27B Qwen3.8 27B none Release: 2026-08-14
Score 5.5 5.5
Rank #209 #211
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.6 10.0
Attempts 66/66 66/66
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 45.5% 40.9%
Flaky tests 6 0
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.220 N/A
Total Cost $0.116 N/A
Input Price $0.600 / 1M N/A
Output Price $3.600 / 1M N/A
Total Input Tokens 95,805 122,463
Output Tokens 16,156 11,445
Reasoning Tokens 0 0
Response Time (avg) 10.62s 3.12s
Response Time (max) 156.31s 44.76s
Response Time (total) 233.68s 68.69s
Parameters 27B 27.3B
Availability Open source Weights available

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#209 Qwen3.6 27B

none
Cost
$0.009
Time
83.0s
Tokens
4,549 tok

#211 Qwen3.8 27B

none
Cost
N/A
Time
23.9s
Tokens
1,922 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
Qwen3.6 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 4.16s 7,913 539 0
Qwen3.8 27B 5.5 10.0 33.3% 0 1.19s 7,911 408 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair