Qwen3.6-27B vs Solar Pro 4
Qwen3.6-27B and Solar Pro 4 are closely matched at 35.5 and 35.2 on the LLM Stats Score. Solar Pro 4 is 2.0x cheaper per token.
Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Upstage · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
Qwen3.6-27B and Solar Pro 4 are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 35.5 and 35.2.
In the 4 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Solar Pro 4 wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Solar Pro 4 is roughly 2.0x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Solar Pro 4 also accepts a larger context window (524,288 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose Qwen3.6-27B
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
Choose Solar Pro 4
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 4 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 2.0x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 524,288 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Aug 2026
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 · 9 for Solar Pro 4
Qwen3.6-27B outperforms in 1 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified), while Solar Pro 4 is better at 3 benchmarks (AIME 2026, GPQA, MMLU-Pro).
Solar Pro 4 shows notably better performance in the majority of 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 1.1x more expensive than Solar Pro 4 ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, Qwen3.6-27B ($3.20/1M tokens) is 2.7x more expensive than Solar Pro 4 ($1.20/1M tokens).
In conclusion, Qwen3.6-27B is more expensive than Solar Pro 4.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Solar Pro 4 accepts 524,288 input tokens compared to Qwen3.6-27B's 262,144 tokens. Qwen3.6-27B can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while Solar Pro 4 is limited to 131,072 tokens.
Input capabilities
Documented input modalities across available providers
Qwen3.6-27B supports multimodal inputs, whereas Solar Pro 4 does not.
Qwen3.6-27B can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.
Qwen3.6-27B
Solar Pro 4
License
Usage and distribution terms
Qwen3.6-27B is licensed under Apache 2.0, while Solar Pro 4 uses a proprietary license.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Proprietary
Closed source
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
Qwen3.6-27B was released on 2026-04-21, while Solar Pro 4 was released on 2026-08-06.
Solar Pro 4 is 4 months newer than Qwen3.6-27B.
Apr 21, 2026
5 months ago
Aug 6, 2026
1 months ago
3mo newerKnowledge 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. Solar Pro 4 is available from Upstage.
Qwen3.6-27B
Solar Pro 4
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against Qwen3.6-27B and Solar Pro 4 side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about Qwen3.6-27B vs Solar Pro 4.