Roboflow

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B

Compare Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side.

Compare Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 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

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Qwen3.5 27B scores higher on 3 of the six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Counting, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 54.0% to 41.9%.

Overall, Qwen3.5 27B averages 64.3% (#26 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B.

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0018 per sample), while Qwen3.8 27B is faster (7.3s vs 7.4s per sample).

Qwen3.5 27BQwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated August 14, 2026Pricing updated August 15, 2026

PropertyQwen3.5 27BQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryopenopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateFeb 2026Aug 2026
Context Window262K262K
Parameters27B27.78B
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.195$0.450
Output $/1M$1.56$3.20
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
OCRDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemo
Object DetectionDemo
Model Features
Foundation Vision
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
64.3%
61.2%
Avg cost / sample$0.0007$0.0018
Avg speed / sample7.38s7.33s
By task
Object Detection
58.8%
$0.0013
54.5%
$0.0036
Counting
54.0%
$0.0002
41.9%
$0.0005
Identification
78.1%
$0.0002
78.1%
$0.0005
OCR
84.5%
$0.0009
81.4%
$0.0019
Data Extraction
78.3%
$0.0002
79.4%
$0.0005
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0002
31.8%
$0.0005
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.0065
62.3%
$0.0087

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

Qwen3.5 27B

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.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding. Qwen reports improvements over Qwen3.6-27B on agentic and multimodal evaluations including Terminal-Bench 2.1, OSWorld-Verified, and SWE-bench Multimodal, with additional results on MathVision, CharXiv, and an internal Vision2Web suite.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.5 27B performed better. It scores higher on 3 of the six vision tasks and averages 64.3% (#26 of 30) against 61.2% (#29 of 30) for Qwen3.8 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

Yes. On the Vision Evals Counting benchmark, Qwen3.5 27B leads with 54.0% against 41.9%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0007 per sample against $0.0018. Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 27B is priced at $0.45 per 1M input tokens and $3.20 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.3s per inference against 7.4s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.