ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Qwen3.6 27B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65, Qwen3.6 27B 65). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

    Released Feb 15, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.7
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

  2. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.6 27B

    Released Apr 22, 2026

    65/100
    • ECI146.5
    • Price$0.60 / $3.60
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.6 27B

  3. Add a model

    Make it a three-way comparison.

01 — Verdict

Too close to call

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, Qwen3.6 27B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 397B-A17BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 · Qwen3.6 27B 146.5
  • Lowest priceSame priceQwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 · Qwen3.6 27B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 · Qwen3.6 27B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsSame inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video · Qwen3.6 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.6 27B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7474
Price25%4444
Inputs & features15%9090
Context window10%3737
Overall100%65/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B vs Qwen3.6 27B specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.6 27BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)146.7 (best)146.5
ECI rank#67 of 148 (best)#68 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions86.4% (best)85.9%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics31.2%35.1% (best)
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics88.9%91.1% (best)
Price per million tokens
Input$0.60$0.60
Output$3.60$3.60
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$1.35$1.35
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceOfficial Alibaba APIOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output65,536 tokens65,536 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioYesYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model IDqwen3.5-397b-a17bqwen3.6-27b
API providers2327 (best)
ReleasedFeb 15, 2026Apr 22, 2026
Knowledge cutoff——
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
  • Qwen3.6 27B$13.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Qwen3.6 27B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within a point (Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100, Qwen3.6 27B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Qwen3.6 27B cost the same: $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens.

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148) and Qwen3.6 27B 146.5 (#68 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (144.8–148.2 vs 144.2–147.9), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 86.4%, Qwen3.6 27B 85.9%; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 — Qwen3.6 27B 35.1%, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 31.2%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — Qwen3.6 27B 91.1%, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 88.9%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Qwen3.6 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B and Qwen3.6 27B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536, Qwen3.6 27B up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video; Qwen3.6 27B accepts text, images, audio and video. They handle the same number of input types.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.6 27B is the newest, released Apr 22, 2026. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B came out Feb 15, 2026.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons