Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B
Compare Qwen3.6 27B and Qwen3.8 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B 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
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals
Qwen3.8 27B scores higher on 4 of the six Vision Evals tasks.
The widest gap is Data Extraction, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 84.5% to 78.0%.
Overall, Qwen3.6 27B averages 73.6% (#25 of 60) against 74.7% (#22 of 60) for Qwen3.8 27B.
Qwen3.8 27B is both cheaper ($0.0009 vs $0.0021 per sample) and faster (18.0s vs 42.1s per sample).
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table
Evals updated October 7, 2026Pricing updated October 7, 2026
| Property | Qwen3.6 27B | Qwen3.8 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | Qwen | Qwen |
| Category | open | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Apr 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| Context Window | 262K | 262K |
| Parameters | 27B | 27.78B |
| License | Apache 2.0 | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.300 | $0.425 |
| Output $/1M | $2.00 | $2.55 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Chart Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Classification | Supported | Demo |
| Document Question Answering | Supported | Supported |
| Image Tagging | Supported | Supported |
| Multi-Label Classification | Supported | Supported |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | Supported | Supported |
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| object-detection | Not listed | Demo |
| Video Classification | Supported | Not listed |
| Model Features | ||
| Foundation Vision | Supported | Supported |
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | Supported | Supported |
| Multimodal Vision | Supported | Supported |
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 6 vision tasks, pooled at low effort | ||
| Overall | 73.6% | 74.7% |
| Quantizationsself-hosted | ||
| Avg cost / sample | $0.0021 | $0.0009 |
| Avg speed / sample | 42.09s | 17.99s |
| By task | ||
| Object Detection (low) | 59.7% ±0.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 59.0 to 60.8 | 65.7% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5 |
| Object Detection (high) | – | 66.1% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8 |
| Counting (low) | 67.1% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.2 to 71.6 | 64.9% ±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9 |
| Counting (high) | – | 68.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3 |
| Identification (low) | 82.3% ±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4 | 85.4% ±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6 |
| Identification (high) | – | 87.5% ±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6 |
| OCR (low) | 88.5% ±1.9, Mean of 3 runs, range 86.7 to 90.6 | 92.2% ±1.2, Mean of 3 runs, range 91.1 to 93.4 |
| OCR (high) | – | 91.5% ±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 90.1 to 92.9 |
| Data Extraction (low) | 84.5% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 83.5 to 85.6 | 78.0% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 77.3 to 79.4 |
| Data Extraction (high) | – | 80.8% ±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 79.4 to 81.4 |
| Reasoning (low) | 59.2% ±1.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 57.6 to 60.9 | 62.0% ±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2 |
| Reasoning (high) | – | 66.0% ±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9 |
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview
Qwen3.6-27B is a dense 27-billion-parameter multimodal language model developed by Alibaba's Qwen team and released on April 22, 2026. It combines a causal language model with an integrated vision encoder, supporting text, image, and video inputs natively. The architecture employs a hybrid attention design that interleaves Gated DeltaNet linear attention blocks with standard Gated Attention layers across 64 transformer layers with a hidden dimension of 5,120. Unlike Mixture-of-Experts variants in the Qwen3.6 family, all 27 billion parameters are active on every inference pass, simplifying deployment and quantization. The model supports a native context window of 262,144 tokens, extensible to approximately 1,010,000 tokens via YaRN scaling. It is released under the Apache 2.0 license with open weights available on Hugging Face and ModelScope.
The model introduces two notable capabilities relative to prior Qwen releases: enhanced agentic coding support covering frontend workflows and repository-level reasoning, and a Thinking Preservation mechanism that retains chain-of-thought reasoning context across multi-turn conversation history to reduce redundant token generation in iterative agent sessions. It supports both a thinking mode for multi-step reasoning and a non-thinking mode for faster responses within a single model. On coding benchmarks, Qwen reports scores of 77.2 on SWE-bench Verified, 59.3 on Terminal-Bench 2.0, and 48.2 on SkillsBench. Vision capabilities include chart understanding (CharXiv RQ: 78.4), OCR (CC-OCR: 81.2), and video understanding (VideoMME with subtitles: 87.7).
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, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on 4 of the six vision tasks and averages 74.7% (#22 of 60) against 73.6% (#25 of 60) for Qwen3.6 27B. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.
Yes. On the Vision Evals Data Extraction benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.6 27B leads with 84.5% against 78.0%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.
Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0021. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.
Qwen3.8 27B is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 18.0s per inference against 42.1s. 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 OCR in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.