Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B

The average score is effectively tied at 5.5 vs 5.5. Qwen3.8 27B has the lower benchmark cost at ~$0.006 vs $0.083. Qwen3.8 27B is faster at 3.12s vs 10.62s, with pass rates of 45.5% vs 40.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-09-28

Compared models

Rank
#275
Total Output Tokens
16,156
Response Time (avg)
10.62s
Total Cost
$0.083
Rank
#277
Total Output Tokens
11,445
Response Time (avg)
3.12s
Total Cost
~$0.006
Recommended model Qwen3.8 27B

It has the best score here (5.5), while costing about 14.6x less than Qwen3.6 27B.

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 #275 #277
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 ~0.063
Total Cost $0.083 ~$0.006
Input Price $0.320 / 1M N/A
Output Price $3.200 / 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.

#275 Qwen3.6 27B

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

#277 Qwen3.8 27B

none
Cost
~$0.001
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