Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.8 27B
At a Glance
| Compare |  Qwen3.5 35B A3BQwen | Qwen3.8 27BQwen |
|---|---|---|
| Intelligence, Cost, and Efficiency | ||
| IntelligenceHigher is better · MM Intelligence v4.4 | #37 of 5717.2 score · 1/3 sources · single-source provisional · missing LiveBench, ARC-AGI-2 · full-core range 5.7–72.4 | #23 of 5752.2 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| CostLower is better · Published-token output estimate | UnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort | #12 of 27$0.063 per LiveBench case |
| EfficiencyHigher is better · MM Efficiency v1.9 | UnrankedNot in the 27-model eligible cohort | #17 of 2747.3 score · 3/3 sources · complete |
| Pricing and Limits | ||
| Input priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $0.14Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 | $0.20Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Output priceFrom · USD / 1M tokens | $1.00Deepinfra ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 | $2.20Openrouter ↗ · Oct 19, 2026 |
| Context windowMaximum documented tokens | 262K | 262K |
| Model facts checked | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → | Aug 28, 2026View model evidence → |
Token prices are the lowest available sourced USD rates; input and output may use different providers. Cost ranking estimates output spend on LiveBench, not a full request bill. Ranking methodology →
Available Benchmarks
| Benchmark | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Qwen3.8-27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text Arenatext-2026-10-15-0ebb411abf00 · arena_rating · leader | 1,394.7397% of row best · rating · qwen3.5-35b-a3b; 95% CI [1390.52780278, 1398.93686884]; votes 30457; rank 161 | 1,440.55100% of row best · rating · qwen3.8-27b; 95% CI [1435.47949951, 1445.61514077]; votes 23294; rank 75 |
| Overall ResultCounted from the protocol-matched rows above | 0 benchmark winsNo overall winner | 1 benchmark winNo overall winner |
Third-party benchmark Only like-for-like primary-publisher results are shown; raw scores, relative scores, configuration, and token spend remain visible.
Side-by-Side Facts
| Field | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Qwen3.8-27B |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | Qwen | Qwen |
| Family | Qwen3 5 35b A3b | Qwen3 8 27b |
| Model | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Qwen3.8-27B |
| Version | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Qwen3.8-27B |
| Lifecycle | active | active |
| Released | Unknown | Unknown |
| Knowledge cutoff | Unknown | Unknown |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image |
| Output modalities | Text | Text |
| Context window | 262K | 262K |
| Total parameters | 36B | 27.8B |
| Active parameters | 3B | Unknown |
| License | apache-2.0 | apache-2.0 |
| Open weights | Yes | Yes |
| API available | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Provider access | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard), Together Ai (Standard) | Deepinfra (Standard), Hugging Face (Standard), Openrouter (Standard) |
| Capabilities | chat, generation, reasoning, tools | chat, generation, reasoning, tools |
Qwen3.5 35B A3B Capabilities
Qwen3.8 27B Capabilities
Related Comparisons
All image comparisons →| A | Pair | B | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs |  Gemma 4 31BGoogle DeepMind | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs |  Ministral-3-14B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | Ministral-3-3B-Instruct-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | Ministral-3-3B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | Ministral-3-8B-Reasoning-2512Mistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | Mistral-Medium-3.5-128BMistral AI | cross-developer peersimage, text |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | cross-developer peerstext | |
| vs | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | family variantstext | |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | family variantsimage, text | |
Qwen3.5-35B-A3BQwen | vs | family variantsimage, text |
Primary Evidence
Sources and Freshness
Questions
Qwen3.5 35B A3B vs Qwen3.8 27B FAQs
Is Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B better for coding?+
This comparison does not currently contain a protocol-matched coding benchmark for both Qwen3.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.8 27B, so Model Markets cannot name a coding leader from pricing, context size, or capability labels alone.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
Qwen3.5 35B A3B is $0.14 and Qwen3.8 27B is $0.20 per million tokens, so Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper on this metric. Qwen3.5 35B A3B is $1.00 and Qwen3.8 27B is $2.20 per million tokens, so Qwen3.5 35B A3B is cheaper on this metric.
Which has a larger context window, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
Both models have the same sourced context window: 262,144 tokens each.
Which performs better in benchmarks, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
There is no overall benchmark winner: At least two independently verified, protocol-matched benchmarks are required for an overall winner.
Can Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B be self-hosted?+
Both models have the same sourced self-hosting status: supported. Qwen3.5 35B A3B is open weight; Qwen3.8 27B is open weight.
Can Qwen3.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.8 27B understand images?+
Qwen3.5 35B A3B is documented with image input; Qwen3.8 27B is documented with image input. This reflects supported input modalities, not vision quality.
Which can generate longer answers, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
Qwen3.8 27B has a sourced maximum output of 131,072 tokens; Qwen3.5 35B A3B's maximum output is not reported. A larger limit cannot be determined.
Do Qwen3.5 35B A3B and Qwen3.8 27B support reasoning and tool use?+
Qwen3.5 35B A3B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Qwen3.8 27B: reasoning, tool calling, and image input. Feature support does not establish relative quality.
Which is available from more inference providers, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
Qwen3.5 35B A3B has 4 sourced provider routes; Qwen3.8 27B has 3, so Qwen3.5 35B A3B has broader tracked availability.
Which offers better value, Qwen3.5 35B A3B or Qwen3.8 27B?+
There is no universal value winner. Compare the input and output prices above with the matched benchmark result for your workload: cheaper tokens can be offset by different quality, token usage, latency, or provider availability.