ZMIME
Comparison · 2 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

Too close to call on our weighted score (Qwen3.8 27B 67, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65). The right pick depends on what you value most.

  1. Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.8 27B

    Released Aug 14, 2026

    67/100
    • ECI149.4
    • Price$0.40 / $2.50
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.8 27B

  2. 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

  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 2 points (Qwen3.8 27B 67/100, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.8 27B for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.8 27BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 27B 149.4 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7
  • Lowest priceQwen3.8 27BQwen3.8 27B $0.925 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B $1.35 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextAbout the sameQwen3.8 27B 262,144 · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 262,144 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 397B-A17BQwen3.8 27B: Text, Images, Video · Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: Text, Images, Audio, Video
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightQwen3.8 27BQwen3.5 397B-A17B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%7774
Price25%5144
Inputs & features15%8090
Context window10%3737
Overall100%67/10065/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

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

Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B specifications side by side
SpecificationQwen3.8 27BAlibaba (Qwen)Qwen3.5 397B-A17BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)149.4 (best)146.7
ECI rank#53 of 148 (best)#67 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions—86.4%
FrontierMath Tiers 1–3Research-level mathematics—31.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics—88.9%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.40 (best)$0.60
Output$2.50 (best)$3.60
Cached input——
Blended (3:1)$0.925 (best)$1.35
Long-context rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 39 providersOfficial Alibaba API
Limits
Context window262,144 tokens262,144 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens65,536 tokens (best)
Inputs and features
TextYesYes
ImagesYesYes
PDFsNoNo
AudioNoYes
VideoYesYes
ReasoningYesYes
Tool callingYesYes
Structured outputYesYes
Availability
WeightsOpenOpen
API model ID—qwen3.5-397b-a17b
API providers41 (best)23
ReleasedAug 14, 2026Feb 15, 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.

  • Qwen3.8 27B$9.00
  • Qwen3.5 397B-A17B$13.20
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: Qwen3.8 27B or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

It is close. Our weighted score puts them within 2 points (Qwen3.8 27B 67/100, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 65/100), so choose by what matters most for your work: Qwen3.8 27B for raw capability. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3.8 27B or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper at $0.40 input / $2.50 output per million tokens (median across 39 API providers). Qwen3.5 397B-A17B costs $0.60 input / $3.60 output per million tokens (official Alibaba API price). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.925 per million tokens for Qwen3.8 27B versus $1.35 for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B (1.5× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.8 27B 149.4 (#53 of 148) and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 146.7 (#67 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (147.5–151.6 vs 144.8–148.2), so treat the gap as small.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.8 27B 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?

Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share the same 262,144-token context window. Maximum output per response: Qwen3.8 27B up to 32,768, Qwen3.5 397B-A17B up to 65,536 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

Qwen3.8 27B accepts text, images and video; Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts text, images, audio and video. Qwen3.5 397B-A17B 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?

Qwen3.8 27B is the newest, released Aug 14, 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