Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct
Wins 6 of 6 areas
Coding · Reasoning · Facts · Images and charts · Long documents · Following instructions
Wins 0 of 6 areas
—
Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger all-rounder.Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct is cheaper.
Scores updated · 15 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the six areas where both have results. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking30Qwen3.6 27B3 of 3 tests
- CodingWriting and fixing software20Qwen3.6 27B2 of 2 tests
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up20Qwen3.6 27B2 of 2 tests
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video20Qwen3.6 27B2 of 2 tests
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts10Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10Qwen3.6 27B1 of 1 test
Long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct costs 71% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 27B pulls ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+48.3points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+36.4points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+33.3points ahead
Where Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct pulls ahead
No clear win on a test scored out of 100.
Every test, side by side
All 15 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 27B
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 27B by 33.334.81.5+33.3
- SciCodeQwen3.6 27B by 24.242.818.6+24.2
ReasoningQwen3.6 27B
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 27B by 22.284.262+22.2
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 27B by 18.523.14.6+18.5
- CritPtQwen3.6 27B by 1.11.10+1.1
FactsQwen3.6 27B
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 27B by 48.350.72.4+48.3
- AA-Omniscience · AccuracyQwen3.6 27B by 5.319.614.3+5.3
Images and chartsQwen3.6 27B
- MMMU-ProQwen3.6 27B by 19.174.655.5+19.1
- OCRBenchv2Qwen3.6 27B by 768.361.3+7
Following instructionsQwen3.6 27B
- IFBenchQwen3.6 27B by 36.467.631.2+36.4
Other results4 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 27B by 77.894.216.4+77.8
- AA-OmniscienceQwen3.6 27B by 49.3-20-69.3+49.3
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 27B by 15.421.46+15.4
- OCRBench v2 (Chinese)Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct by 1.358.760+1.3
Questions people ask
Which is better, Qwen3.6 27B or Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct?
Qwen3.6 27B wins all six areas where both have results: coding, reasoning, facts, images and charts, long documents and following instructions. Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct wins none, but costs 71% less.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 27B. It wins 2 of the 2 coding tests both models report; Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct wins none.
Which is cheaper?
Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct costs $0.25 and $0.97. That makes Qwen3 Omni 30B A3B Instruct about 71% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 15 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 11 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 4 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.