Qwen3.5 Flash vs Qwen3.5 27B
Qwen3.5 Flash comes out ahead, 79 to 61 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.
- Our pick
Alibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 Flash
79/100- ECI144.0
- Price$0.10 / $0.40
- Context1M
- 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 Flash is our pick
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.5 27B (61). It leads on price and context window. 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 FlashQwen3.5 Flash $0.175 · Qwen3.5 27B $0.825 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
- Longest contextQwen3.5 FlashQwen3.5 Flash 1,000,000 · Qwen3.5 27B 262,144 tokens
- Widest inputsQwen3.5 27BQwen3.5 Flash: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 27B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
- Self-hostingQwen3.5 27BPublishes downloadable weights
| Measure | Weight | Qwen3.5 Flash | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Price | 50% | 86 | 54 |
| Inputs & features | 30% | 80 | 90 |
| Context window | 20% | 60 | 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 FlashAlibaba (Qwen) | Qwen3.5 27BAlibaba (Qwen) |
|---|---|---|
| Capability | ||
| Capabilities Index (ECI) | 144.0 | — |
| ECI rank | #82 of 148 | — |
| GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions | 82.3% | — |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics | 18.3% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics | 84.4% | — |
| SimpleQA VerifiedShort factual questions | 20.3% | — |
| Price per million tokens | ||
| Input | $0.10 (best) | $0.30 |
| Output | $0.40 (best) | $2.40 |
| Cached input | $0.01 | — |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.175 (best) | $0.825 |
| Long-context rate | Same rate | Same rate |
| Price source | Official Alibaba API | Official Alibaba API |
| Limits | ||
| Context window | 1,000,000 tokens (best) | 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 | Proprietary | Open |
| API model ID | qwen3.5-flash | qwen3.5-27b |
| API providers | 8 | 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 Flash$1.80
- Qwen3.5 27B$7.80
Which should you choose?
Which is better: Qwen3.5 Flash or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 Flash is the better all-round choice, scoring 79/100 against Qwen3.5 27B (61). It leads on price and context window. 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 Flash or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 Flash is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.40 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). 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 $0.175 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 Flash versus $0.825 for Qwen3.5 27B (4.7× as much).
Which scores higher on benchmarks?
There is no independent benchmark that covers both models yet. Qwen3.5 Flash has an ECI of 144.0 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 Flash 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 Flash has the largest context window at 1,000,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5 27B. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.5 Flash up to 65,536, Qwen3.5 27B up to 65,536 tokens.
Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?
Qwen3.5 Flash 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?
Qwen3.5 27B publishes its weights and can be self-hosted; Qwen3.5 Flash is proprietary.
Which is newer?
Qwen3.5 Flash 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 Gemma 4 31B ITThree-way comparison
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs Gemma 4 31B ITGoogle · ECI 142.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs DeepSeek V4 FlashDeepSeek · ECI 146.1
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs GPT-5.4 nanoOpenAI · ECI 145.8
- Qwen3.5 Flash vs MiniMax-M2.7MiniMax · ECI 145.9
- Qwen3.5 27B vs Seed 2.0 CodeByteDance Seed
- Qwen3.5 27B vs MiniMax-M2.5-highspeedMiniMax
