Grounded SAM vs Qwen3.5 27B
Compare Grounded SAM and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side.
Compare Grounded SAM vs Qwen3.5 27B live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
These models don't share enough common tasks for a side-by-side demo. See the comparison table below for their capabilities.
Models in this comparison
Grounded SAM vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview
Grounded SAM is an open-vocabulary image segmentation model developed by IDEA Research, released in January 2024 under the Apache 2.0 license. It combines Grounding DINO, a zero-shot open-vocabulary object detector, with the Segment Anything Model to produce precise segmentation masks for objects identified through free-form text prompts. The two models are used sequentially: Grounding DINO localizes objects from a text query, and SAM generates the corresponding segmentation masks.
Grounded SAM enables zero-shot instance segmentation without task-specific training data, making it applicable to domains where labeled segmentation data is scarce. It supports arbitrary text queries and can segment objects not represented in standard training sets. The model is commonly used in automated labeling pipelines, robotic perception, and domain-specific vision applications requiring open-vocabulary segmentation.
Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.
Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.
Grounded SAM vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table
| Property | Grounded SAM | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | IDEA Research | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Jan 2024 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | — | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.195 | |
| Output $/1M | $1.56 | |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Vision Language | ||
| Captioning | Demo | |
| Object Detection | ||
| OCR | Demo | |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | |
| Zero Shot Segmentation | ||
| Model Features | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Zero-shot Detection | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 71.64% | |
| Avg Response Time | 1.98s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.2K | |
| Median output tokens | 7 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | |
| Defect Detection | 80%(12/15) | |
| Document Understanding | 77.8%(7/9) | |
| Object Counting | 40%(4/10) | |
| Object Understanding | 78.6%(11/14) | |
| Spatial Understanding | 73.7%(14/19) | |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 85.59% | |
| Avg Response Time | 8.51s | |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 126 | |
| Median output tokens | 107 | |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | |
| Focused Scene OCR | 84.8%(84/99) | |
| Handwritten Math | 100%(10/10) | |
| License Plate Recognition | 93.3%(28/30) | |
| Text Recognition | 80%(24/30) | |
| VQA & Extraction | 83.3%(50/60) | |
Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology