Model Comparison
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
vs. M (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · Alibaba, Sarvam
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)10 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Lowest Price
M (Reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
42.3 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
46.6 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
M (Reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) leads M (Reasoning) by 11.7 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
M (Reasoning)
Sarvam
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 Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) | Sa M (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.60/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $3.60/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $1.35/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Alibaba | Sarvam |
| Release Date | Apr 22, 2026 | May 23, 2025 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 64.0 tok/s | — |
| TTFT | 1597ms | — |
| Latency | 1597ms | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 42.3 | 30.6 |
| Intelligence | 30.5 | 3.0 |
| Coding | 46.6 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 82.9% | 41.6% |
| MMLU Pro | — | 69.6% |
| HLE | 13.6% | 3.3% |
| LiveCodeBench | — | 29.5% |
| MATH 500 | — | 84.7% |
| AIME (Original) | — | 20.3% |
| SciCode | 37.3% | 17.8% |
| LCR | 55.0% | 0.0% |
| IFBench | 45.7% | 31.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 93.6% | 0.0% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 21.2% | 2.3% |
Key Takeaways
M (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 42.3 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 46.6 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
Qwen3.6 27B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
M (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
