Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-27B leads the LLM Stats Score 35.2 to 32.0. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is 3.3x cheaper per token.
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.6-27B leads the overall LLM Stats Score 35.2 to 32.0, ranking #107 overall.
In the 35 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3.6-27B wins 31; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is roughly 3.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Qwen3.6-27B
- overall performance matters — it scores 35.2 and ranks #107 on LLM Stats
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 31 of 35 exact shared results
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Apr 2026
Choose Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
- cost matters — it's about 3.3x cheaper per token
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
44 reported for Qwen3.6-27B · 49 for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-27B outperforms in 31 benchmarks (AIME 2026, C-Eval, CharXiv-R, Claw-Eval, EmbSpatialBench, GPQA, HMMT 2025, HMMT25, HMMT Feb 26, Humanity's Last Exam, IMO-AnswerBench, LiveCodeBench v6, MathVista-Mini, MLVU, MMLU-Pro, MMLU-Redux, MMMU, MMMU-Pro, MVBench, NL2Repo, RefCOCO-avg, RefSpatialBench, SkillsBench, SuperGPQA, SWE-bench Multilingual, SWE-Bench Pro, SWE-Bench Verified, Terminal-Bench 2.0, VideoMME w sub., VideoMMMU, ZClawBench), while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is better at 4 benchmarks (CC-OCR, MMBench-V1.1, RealWorldQA, SimpleVQA).
Qwen3.6-27B significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, Qwen3.6-27B ($0.32/1M tokens) is 3.2x more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.10/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.6-27B ($3.20/1M tokens) is 3.4x more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ($0.95/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.6-27B is more expensive than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Model Size
Parameter count comparison
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has 7.2B more parameters than Qwen3.6-27B, making it 26.0% larger.
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Both models have the same input context window of 262,144 tokens. Both models can generate responses up to 262,144 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Both Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B support multimodal inputs.
They are both capable of processing various types of data, offering versatility in application.
Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
License
Usage and distribution terms
Both models are licensed under Apache 2.0.
Both models share the same licensing terms, providing consistent usage rights.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.6-27B was released on 2026-04-21, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B was released on 2026-04-16.
Qwen3.6-27B is 0 month newer than Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Apr 21, 2026
6 months ago
5d newerApr 16, 2026
6 months ago
Knowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
Qwen3.6-27B is available from DeepInfra, Novita. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is available from DeepInfra.
Qwen3.6-27B
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.