Alibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.6-27BVSAlibaba Cloud (Qwen)Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Our Take
We recommend selecting the model size (27B vs 35B) that fits best within your local hardware's VRAM constraints. Both models run locally for zero API costs and offer comparable performance.
▶WHY?
Benchmark Calculations & Evidence:
Reasoning Accuracy: Qwen3.6-27B scores 87.8% on reasoning compared to 86% for Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Coding Performance: Both models were evaluated on the SWE-bench Pro benchmark. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 49.5%, while Qwen3.6-27B scored 53.5% (+-4.0% gap).
Hardware Footprint: Qwen3.6-27B has 27B parameters, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has 35B parameters.
Was this recommendation helpful?
Benchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)Winner (+4.0%)
53.5%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)Winner (+1.8%)
87.8%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensBenchmarks & Scores
Coding (swe-bench-pro)
49.5%complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning
Reasoning (gpqa-diamond)
86%graduate-level science QA
Cost & Context
Cost (per 1M tokens)
Self HostLocal execution (zero API fees)Context Window
262.14k tokensFrequently Asked Questions about Qwen3.6-27B vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Qwen3.6-27B is better for coding tasks on this benchmark. It scores 53.5% on swe-bench-pro (complex codebases, multi-file repositories, and architectural planning) compared to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B which scores 49.5%.
Related Matchups
Explore similar comparisons for Qwen3.6-27B and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Do you want to find a model for your constraints?
Use our interactive model finder to filter LLMs by reasoning capability, coding performance, cost, and context length.