Navigate
Advertise here

Qwen3.6 27B vs Solar Pro 4 (high)

The average score is effectively tied at 6.3 vs 6.3. Qwen3.6 27B has the lower benchmark cost at $0.147 vs $0.164. Qwen3.6 27B is faster at 12.71s vs 128.91s, with pass rates of 47.8% vs 60.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-10-01

Compared models

Rank
#214
Total Output Tokens
20,816
Response Time (avg)
12.71s
Total Cost
$0.147
Rank
#219
Total Output Tokens
402,203
Response Time (avg)
128.91s
Total Cost
$0.164
Recommended model Qwen3.6 27B

It has the best score here (6.3), while responding about 10.1x faster than Solar Pro 4 (high).

Detailed comparison

Metric Qwen3.6 27B Qwen3.6 27B none Release: 2026-04-20 Solar Pro 4 Solar Pro 4 high Release: 2026-08-11
Score 6.3 6.3
Rank #214 #219
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.7 8.0
Attempts 69/69 69/69
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 47.8% 60.9%
Flaky tests 6 6
Total Runs 69 69
Cost per result 1.874 0.652
Total Cost $0.147 $0.164
Input Price $0.320 / 1M $0.090 / 1M
Output Price $3.200 / 1M $0.360 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 250,919 209,002
Output Tokens 20,816 24,675
Reasoning Tokens 0 377,528
Response Time (avg) 12.71s 128.91s
Response Time (max) 156.31s 491.07s
Response Time (total) 292.29s 2965.04s
Parameters 27B ~100B
Availability Open source Closed

Model generation showcase

Hamster playing table tennis

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

#214 Qwen3.6 27B

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

#219 Solar Pro 4

high
No showcase result has been generated for this model yet.
Cost
N/A
Time
-
Tokens
0 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
Solar Pro 4 5.7 9.9 33.3% 0 244.73s 7,887 18,577 101,928

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair