Model Comparison
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
vs. QwQ 32B
Comparing 2 AI models · 12 benchmarks · Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Al Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) 9 metric wins Strongest on: Input price, Throughput, Latency
Best Value
QwQ 32B
100.0 value score
45.6 reasoning / $0.74/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
$0.30/1M input price
Best Reasoning
QwQ 32B
45.6 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
33.4 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
QwQ 32B has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) is 2.2x cheaper on input tokens than QwQ 32B.
Speed gap
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) generates about 2.9x as many tokens per second as QwQ 32B.
Reasoning gap
QwQ 32B leads Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) by 0.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) wins 9 measurable categories, including Input price, Throughput, Latency, Intelligence.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
QwQ 32B
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) | Al QwQ 32B |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.30/1M | $0.66/1M |
| Output Cost | $2.60/1M | $1.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.88/1M | $0.74/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Feb 24, 2026 | Mar 5, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 92.1 tok/s | 31.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 1418ms | 452ms |
| Latency | 1418ms | 79356ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 83.8 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 44.9 | 45.6 |
| Intelligence | 37.2 | 19.7 |
| Coding | 33.4 | — |
| Math | — | 29.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 84.2% | 59.3% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 76.4% |
| HLE | 13.2% | 8.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 63.1% |
| MATH 500 | — | 95.7% |
| AIME 2025 | — | 29.0% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 78.0% |
| SciCode | 36.7% | 35.8% |
| LCR | 55.7% | 25.0% |
| IFBench | 46.9% | 38.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 87.1% | — |
| TerminalBench Hard | 31.8% | — |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.30/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
QwQ 32B has the strongest reasoning profile with a 45.6 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 33.4 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
Qwen3.5 27B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
QwQ 32B
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
