Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash
Compare Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.6 Flash side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash live
Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.
Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash: Overview
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.
Qwen3.6-Flash is the production API variant of the Qwen3.6 model series, developed by the Qwen team at Alibaba Group. It is built on the Qwen3.6-35B-A3B architecture, which combines a hybrid linear attention mechanism with sparse Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) routing to achieve high-throughput inference with reduced latency. The model is natively multimodal, processing both text and images within a unified early-fusion architecture, and supports 201 languages and dialects. It operates in a hybrid thinking mode, capable of generating explicit chain-of-thought reasoning before producing a final response, with the option to disable thinking for direct output. A Thinking Preservation feature allows reasoning context to be retained across multi-turn conversations, which is particularly useful for iterative agentic workflows.
The model is trained with reinforcement learning scaled across large-scale agent environments and covers a broad range of tasks including agentic coding, frontend development, visual understanding, document processing, and tool use. Compared to the open-weight Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, the Flash API variant extends the default context window to 1 million tokens and includes built-in production features such as native function calling and official tool integrations. The underlying architecture achieves near-100% multimodal training efficiency relative to text-only training, and the model demonstrates strong performance on agentic coding benchmarks including SWE-bench Verified.
Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.6 Flash Comparison Table
| Property | Qwen3.5 27B | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | open | closed |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Feb 2026 | Apr 2026 |
| Context Window | 262K | 1.0M |
| Parameters | 27B | 35B (3B active, MoE) |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Proprietary |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.195 | $0.188 |
| Output $/1M | $1.56 | $1.13 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | ||
| Document Question Answering | ||
| Object Detection | ||
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
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