Qwen3.5 9B vs Qwen3.5 27B
Qwen3.5 9B comes out ahead, 79 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 9B
79/100- ECI139.5
- Price$0.10 / $0.15
- Context262K
- Alibaba (Qwen)
Qwen3.5 27B
61/100- ECI—
- Price$0.30 / $2.40
- Context262K
Add a model
Make it a three-way comparison.
Qwen3.5 9B is our pick
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.5 27B (61). It leads on price. Qwen3.5 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
- CapabilityNot enough dataNo independent benchmark covers every model here yet
- Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · Qwen3.5 27B $0.825 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.5 9B 262,144 · Qwen3.5 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 27BQwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 9B | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 95 | 54 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 37 | 37 |
| Overall | 100% | 79/100 | 61/100 |
Left out because at least one model lacks the data: capability. The remaining weights were rescaled.
Every spec in one table
Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.
| Specification | Qwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.5 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 139.5 | — |
| ECI rank | #101 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 79.0% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 61.7% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.15 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | — | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.113 (best) | $0.825 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Median of 14 providers | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 262,144 tokens |
| Max output | 65,536 tokens | 65,536 tokens |
| Inputs and features | ||
| Text | Yes | Yes |
| Images | Yes | Yes |
| PDFs | No | No |
| Audio | No | Yes |
| Video | Yes | Yes |
| Reasoning | Yes | Yes |
| Tool calling | Yes | Yes |
| Structured output | Yes | Yes |
| Availability | ||
| Weights | Open | Open |
| API model ID | — | qwen3.5-27b |
| API providers | 15 | 16 (best) |
| Released | Feb 23, 2026 | Feb 23, 2026 |
| Knowledge cutoff | — | — |
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 9B$1.30
- Qwen3.5 27B$7.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 9B or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.5 27B (61). It leads on price. Qwen3.5 27B wins on inputs & features. The score weighs price 50%, inputs & features 30%, context window 20%. None of the shared benchmarks cover every model here yet, so capability is left out of this verdict.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 9B or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). Qwen3.5 27B costs $0.30 input / $2.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.825 for Qwen3.5 27B (7.3× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.5 9B has an ECI of 139.5 and Qwen3.5 27B has not been scored yet.
Which is better for coding?
There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.5 9B and Qwen3.5 27B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. Test both on a sample of your own tasks. Both support tool calling for agent workflows.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5 9B and Qwen3.5 27B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, Qwen3.5 27B up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.5 27B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 27B handles the widest range of inputs.
Are any of these open source?
Yes, both publish their weights, so you can self-host them.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. Qwen3.5 27B came out Feb 23, 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.
Related comparisons
- Add GPT-5 NanoThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 9B vs GPT-5 NanoOpenAI · ECI 139.4
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Gemma 4 26B A4B ITGoogle · ECI 141.9
- Qwen3.5 9B vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 9B vs Mistral Small 3.2Mistral AI · ECI 131.7
- Qwen3.5 27B vs Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed
- Qwen3.5 27B vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax
