Roboflow

Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max

Compare Qwen3.5 27B and Qwen3.8 Max side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, Open Prompt, Classification, Object Detection, and OCR.

Compare Qwen3.5 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 Max
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

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

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on all six Vision Evals tasks.

The widest gap is Reasoning, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.5% to 31.8%.

Overall, Qwen3.5 27B averages 64.3% (#21 of 24) against 84.0% (#2 of 24) for Qwen3.8 Max.

Qwen3.5 27B is both cheaper ($0.0007 vs $0.0074 per sample) and faster (7.4s vs 18.0s per sample).

Qwen3.5 27BQwen3.8 Max

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

Evals updated August 3, 2026Pricing updated August 5, 2026

PropertyQwen3.5 27BQwen3.8 Max
OrganizationQwenQwen
Categoryopenclosed
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateFeb 2026Aug 2026
Context Window262K984K
Parameters27B2.4T total, ~95B active
LicenseApache 2.0Apache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.195$2.00
Output $/1M$1.56$6.00
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Chart Question Answering
ClassificationDemoDemo
Document Question Answering
Image Tagging
Multi-Label Classification
Object DetectionDemoDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
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%
84.0%
Avg cost / sample$0.0007$0.0074
Avg speed / sample7.38s18.02s
By task
Object Detection
58.8%
$0.0013
77.1%
$0.013
Counting
54.0%
$0.0002
82.4%
$0.0046
Identification
78.1%
$0.0002
90.6%
$0.0027
OCR
84.5%
$0.0009
92.8%
$0.0056
Data Extraction
78.3%
$0.0002
87.6%
$0.0029
Reasoning (low)
31.8%
$0.0002
73.5%
$0.0047
Reasoning (high)
61.6%
$0.0065
80.8%
$0.011

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

Qwen3.8 Max is the flagship tier of Alibaba's Qwen3.8 family, a sparse mixture-of-experts multimodal model with roughly 2.4 trillion total parameters of which about 95 billion activate per token, which keeps serving cost and latency well below what the total parameter count would imply. It builds on the architectural foundation established by Qwen3.5 and accepts text, images, video, and documents as input while producing text output. Reported context handling reaches close to one million tokens, with a maximum generation length of 131,072 tokens, so the model is aimed at long-horizon agentic work such as repository-scale coding, multi-step research, data analysis, and office document workflows.

For vision work the model performs image and video understanding, document and chart interpretation, text recognition inside images, and grounded visual question answering, and Alibaba reports gains concentrated in multimodal and agentic evaluation categories rather than general reasoning. Published figures include 86.6 on Terminal-Bench 2.1, 67.7 on SWE-bench Pro, 93.0 on PaperBench, 82.8 on IFBench, and 92.6 on GPQA Diamond. It is the first model in the Max tier of the Qwen line for which the team states weights will be released publicly, alongside a smaller Qwen3.8 27B checkpoint. No training or safety model card has been published.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 Max performed better. It scores higher on all six vision tasks and averages 84.0% (#2 of 24) against 64.3% (#21 of 24) for Qwen3.5 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Reasoning benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 Max leads with 73.5% against 31.8%. 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 $0.0074. Qwen3.5 27B is priced at $0.20 per 1M input tokens and $1.56 per 1M output; Qwen3.8 Max is priced at $2.00 per 1M input tokens and $6.00 per 1M output. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

Qwen3.5 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 7.4s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for image captioning and open prompts in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.