Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Qwen3 235B vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Name: Qwen3 235B vs Qwen3.8 27B AI benchmark comparison
Creator: CompareLLM
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This page compares Qwen3 235B (Alibaba) and Qwen3.8 27B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen3 235B is ahead by 42 points (1,440 vs 1,398; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen3 235B resolves 59.4% versus 58.8% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Qwen3.8 27B streams faster (152 tok/s) while Qwen3 235B is the cheaper output token ($1.82/1M). 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

Qwen3 235B

Open-weight Qwen3 mixture-of-experts.

Elo 1,440$1.8199999999999998/1M 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.

Qwen3 235B (5)vsQwen3.8 27B (5)

Qwen3 235B: 5W (50%)Overall: Even matchupQwen3.8 27B: 5W (50%)

← Qwen3 235BQwen3.8 27B →

Qwen3 235B (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,440vs1,398

Coding Elo

—vs1,422

SWE-bench

59.4%vs58.8%

LiveBench

63.5%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

76.8%vs73.4%

Qwen3 235B: 4WQwen3.8 27B: 1W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

74 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

320 msvs140 ms

Qwen3 235B: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$1.82/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$0.45/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

131kvs262k

Qwen3 235B: 1WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

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 AdvantageQwen3 235B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen3 235B

42 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen3.8 27B

78 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen3 235B

$1.38/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

+3%1,440

EloHigh is better

1,398

Code Elo

High is better

—

Code EloHigh is better

1,422

LiveBench

High is better

+5%63.5%

LiveBenchHigh is better

60.6%

SWE-bench

High is better

+1%59.4%

SWE-benchHigh is better

58.8%

GPQA

High is better

+5%76.8%

GPQAHigh is better

73.4%

TTFT

Low is better

320 ms

TTFTLow is better

140 ms+129%

Speed

High is better

74 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

152 tok/s+105%

In $

Low is better

$0.45/1M

In $Low is better

$0.45/1M+1%

Out $

Low is better

+76%$1.82/1M

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 32% with Qwen3 235B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

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

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

Qwen3 235B$43.22 / mo

In: $15.92Out: $27.30

Qwen3.8 27B$63.75 / mo

In: $15.75Out: $48.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen3 235B is estimated to save $20.53/month ($246/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen3 235B:Pick Qwen3 235B 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
Qwen3 235B:Pick Qwen3 235B as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen3 235B

Higher SWE-bench (59.4%).

High-volume chatQwen3 235B

Lower output list price ($1.82/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen3 235B

Qwen3 235B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen3 235B	Higher SWE-bench (59.4%).
High-volume chat	Qwen3 235B	Lower output list price ($1.82/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen3 235B	Qwen3 235B 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.

launchSep 20, 2025

Qwen3 235B: the open MoE Qwen, not the Max SKU

Sep 2025 open-weight mixture-of-experts. Self-host path. Don’t confuse it with Qwen 3 Max.

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-3-235b-vs-qwen-3-8-27b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Alibaba

Qwen3 235B

Elo 1,440

LiveBench63.5%

SWE-bench59.4%

Speed74 tok/s

Output cost$1.82/1M

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, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3 235B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,440). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3 235B leads SWE-bench at 59.4% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen3 235B output tokens are $1.82/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?: Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 320 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 Qwen3 235B 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. Qwen3 235B 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 Qwen3 235B matchups →|All Qwen3.8 27B matchups →

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

Qwen3 235B vs Qwen3.8 27B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Qwen3 235B (5)vsQwen3.8 27B (5)

Qwen3 235B: 5W (50%)Overall: Even matchupQwen3.8 27B: 5W (50%)

← Qwen3 235BQwen3.8 27B →

Qwen3 235B (4/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,440vs1,398

Coding Elo

—vs1,422

SWE-bench

59.4%vs58.8%

LiveBench

63.5%vs60.6%

GPQA Diamond

76.8%vs73.4%

Qwen3 235B: 4WQwen3.8 27B: 1W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

74 tok/svs152 tok/s

Time to first token

320 msvs140 ms

Qwen3 235B: 0WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$1.82/1Mvs$3.2/1M

Input price

$0.45/1Mvs$0.45/1M

Context window

131kvs262k

Qwen3 235B: 1WQwen3.8 27B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen3 235B

Higher SWE-bench (59.4%).

High-volume chatQwen3 235B

Lower output list price ($1.82/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen3 235B

Qwen3 235B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen3 235B	Higher SWE-bench (59.4%).
High-volume chat	Qwen3 235B	Lower output list price ($1.82/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen3 235B	Qwen3 235B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3 235B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,440). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

Which is better at coding, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3 235B leads SWE-bench at 59.4% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen3 235B output tokens are $1.82/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

Which is faster, Qwen3 235B or Qwen3.8 27B?

Qwen3.8 27B has the lower time-to-first-token (140 ms vs 320 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 Qwen3 235B 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. Qwen3 235B 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

Qwen3 235B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3 235B

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

Qwen3 235B: the open MoE Qwen, not the Max SKU

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Qwen3 235B

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

Qwen3 235B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3 235B

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

Qwen3 235B: the open MoE Qwen, not the Max SKU

Cast Your Matchup Vote

Community Discussions (0)

Share card

CompareLLM Matrix

Qwen3 235B

Qwen3.8 27B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons