Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Name: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3.8 27B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (Alibaba) and Qwen3.8 27B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is ahead by 27 points (1,425 vs 1,398; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B resolves 65.2% versus 58.8% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Qwen3.8 27B streams faster (152 tok/s) while Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the cheaper output token ($0.72/1M). Qwen3.8 27B has the larger context window (262k tokens). Every cell below is a dated snapshot from a named public source — we do not invent missing scores, and we do not run SWE-bench ourselves.

Share Analysis:

WhatsApp Telegram X / Post LinkedIn Reddit

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Alibaba dedicated open-weight code generation model with near-frontier SWE-bench Verified coding capability.

Elo 1,425$0.72/1M out

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Alibaba open-weight 27B drop dated Aug 14 2026. Dense enough to self-host; not a frontier MoE.

Elo 1,398$3.1999999999999997/1M out

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Instant pairwise benchmark recalculation across 400+ LLMs

Model A

Model B

Quick vs:vs Claude Opus 4.5 vs Claude Opus 4.6 vs Claude Sonnet 4.5 vs Claude 3.7 Sonnet

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (7)vsQwen3.8 27B (3)

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 7W (70%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen3.8 27B: 3W (30%)

← Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen3.8 27B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,425vs1,398

Coding Elo

1,495vs1,422

SWE-bench

65.2%vs58.8%

LiveBench

64.8%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

74%vs73.4%

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5WQwen3.8 27B: 0W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

110 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

180 msvs140 ms

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$0.72/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$0.18/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

131kvs262k

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2WQwen3.8 27B: 1W

Capability Matchup Radar

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Each spoke is a skill. Farther from the center is better (0–100th percentile). Tap any dot to inspect details.

Tap any node to inspect

Percentile 0–100

Dimensional AdvantageQwen 2.5 Coder 32B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

27 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen3.8 27B

42 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

$2.48/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+2%1,425

EloHigh is better

1,398

Code Elo

High is better

+5%1,495

Code EloHigh is better

1,422

LiveBench

High is better

+7%64.8%

LiveBenchHigh is better

60.6%

SWE-bench

High is better

+11%65.2%

SWE-benchHigh is better

58.8%

GPQA

High is better

+1%74%

GPQAHigh is better

73.4%

TTFT

Low is better

180 ms

TTFTLow is better

140 ms+29%

Speed

High is better

110 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

152 tok/s+38%

In $

Low is better

+150%$0.18/1M

In $Low is better

$0.45/1M

Out $

Low is better

+344%$0.72/1M

Out $Low is better

$3.2/1M

Context

High is better

131k

ContextHigh is better

262k+100%

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Simulate monthly production API costs based on published $/1M tokens.

Save up to 73% with Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

Token Ratio (In vs Out)70% In / 30% Out

RAG / Search (10% out)Coding / Chat (50% out)

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B$17.10 / mo

In: $6.30Out: $10.80

Qwen3.8 27B$63.75 / mo

In: $15.75Out: $48.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is estimated to save $46.65/month ($560/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B when repo-level coding accuracy is the constraint.
2
Qwen3.8 27B:Pick Qwen3.8 27B when time-to-first-token matters more than peak Elo.
3
Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B:Pick Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

View all news

launchAug 14, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Alibaba open-weight 27B drop. Local/open-weight lists should see it. It will not win frontier-agents.

Community Sentiment

Cast Your Matchup Vote

0 total votes

Community Discussions (0)

No comments posted on this matchup yet. Be the first to share an evaluation note!

Share card

The real PNG is generated at /compare/qwen-2-5-coder-32b-vs-qwen-3-8-27b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Alibaba

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Elo 1,425

LiveBench64.8%

SWE-bench65.2%

Speed110 tok/s

Output cost$0.72/1M

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Elo 1,398

LiveBench60.6%

SWE-bench58.8%

Speed152 tok/s

Output cost$3.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 180 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.
Which has the larger context window?: Qwen3.8 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 131k.
Can I self-host either model?: Both Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B and Qwen3.8 27B are marked open-weights. Hosting cost is not in this table.
Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?: No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.
What does preference Elo mean on this page?: Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B and Qwen3.8 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B matchups →|All Qwen3.8 27B matchups →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Plus (previous qwen)Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3 235B (next qwen)Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen 3 Max (previous qwen)Qwen QwQ 32B vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Qwen 3 Max vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B Llama 4 Maverick vs Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (7)vsQwen3.8 27B (3)

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 7W (70%)Overall: Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen3.8 27B: 3W (30%)

← Qwen 2.5 Coder 32BQwen3.8 27B →

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

Preference Elo, Coding proficiency, SWE-bench & LiveBench accuracy

Preference Elo

1,425vs1,398

Coding Elo

1,495vs1,422

SWE-bench

65.2%vs58.8%

LiveBench

64.8%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

74%vs73.4%

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 5WQwen3.8 27B: 0W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

110 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

180 msvs140 ms

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$0.72/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$0.18/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

131kvs262k

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B: 2WQwen3.8 27B: 1W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).

High-volume chatQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Higher SWE-bench (65.2%).
High-volume chat	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Lower output list price ($0.72/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B	Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,425). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B leads SWE-bench at 65.2% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B output tokens are $0.72/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 180 ms). Tokens/sec is a separate column if you care about long completions.

Which has the larger context window?

Qwen3.8 27B accepts 262k tokens versus 131k.

Can I self-host either model?

Both Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B and Qwen3.8 27B are marked open-weights. Hosting cost is not in this table.

Are these scores from CompareLLM’s own evals?

No. V1 aggregates public leaderboards (and optional first-party latency pings). Each cell names its source and date. Read /methodology.

What does preference Elo mean on this page?

Preference Elo is a crowd vote from LMArena / Arena. People see two hidden answers and pick the one they like more. The model that wins more often gets a higher Elo. That means people preferred it — not that it passed a school test. It is not SWE-bench, not accuracy, and not a number we invent. Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B and Qwen3.8 27B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

Swap or Add Any Model to this Matchup

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Intelligence & Reasoning

Speed & Latency

Pricing & Capacity

Multi-Dimensional Capability Radar

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

Key Selection Recommendations

Recommended Workload Routing

Related Editorial Dispatches & Benchmark Notes

Qwen3.8 27B (Aug 14): dense enough to self-host, not a frontier MoE

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Qwen 2.5 Coder 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons