Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
vs. Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)11 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, TTFT, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
100.0 value score
29.8 reasoning / $0.31/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
$0.18/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
47.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) is 1.7x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning).
Speed gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) generates about 1.4x as many tokens per second as Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) leads Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) by 17.4 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) wins 11 measurable categories, including Throughput, TTFT, Reasoning, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) | Al Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $0.18/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.40/1M | $0.70/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.82/1M | $0.31/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 24, 2026 | Apr 28, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 86.2 tok/s | 61.2 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1396ms | 1407ms |
| Latency | 24612ms | 1407ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 59.5 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 47.3 | 29.8 |
| Intelligence | 33.8 | 5.1 |
| Math | — | 24.3 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 85.8% | 45.2% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 64.3% |
| HLE | 22.2% | 2.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 20.2% |
| MATH 500 | — | 82.8% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 24.3% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 24.3% |
| SciCode | 39.5% | 16.8% |
| LCR | 67.3% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 75.6% | 28.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 93.9% | 24.9% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 32.6% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.18/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 47.3 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens,suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3.5 27B (Reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3 8B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
