Pairwise benchmark snapshot · Aug 16, 2026

Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen QwQ 32B benchmark

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

This page compares Qwen3.8 27B (Alibaba) and Qwen QwQ 32B (Alibaba) using the latest snapshots we have as of Aug 16, 2026. On preference Elo, Qwen QwQ 32B is ahead by 97 points (1,495 vs 1,398; seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). On SWE-bench coding, Qwen QwQ 32B resolves 67.5% versus 58.8% (seed-bootstrap (Aug 1, 2026)). Qwen3.8 27B streams faster (152 tok/s) while Qwen QwQ 32B is the cheaper output token ($1.2/1M). 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

Qwen3.8 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

Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Alibaba specialized open reasoning model competing with frontier closed reasoning models.

Elo 1,495$1.2/1M 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.

Qwen3.8 27B (3)vsQwen QwQ 32B (7)

Qwen3.8 27B: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen QwQ 32BQwen QwQ 32B: 7W (70%)

← Qwen3.8 27BQwen QwQ 32B →

Qwen QwQ 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,398vs1,495

Coding Elo

1,422vs1,520

SWE-bench

58.8%vs67.5%

LiveBench

60.6%vs68%

GPQA Diamond

73.4%vs83.2%

Qwen3.8 27B: 0WQwen QwQ 32B: 5W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

152 tok/svs68 tok/s

Time to first token

140 msvs320 ms

Qwen3.8 27B: 2WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W

Qwen QwQ 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$3.2/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$0.45/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

262kvs131k

Qwen3.8 27B: 1WQwen QwQ 32B: 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 AdvantageQwen QwQ 32B 4/6

Preference Elo

Qwen QwQ 32B

97 pts advantage

Throughput Speed

Qwen3.8 27B

84 tok/s faster

Price Efficiency

Qwen QwQ 32B

$2.00/1M cheaper

Full Benchmark Score Matrix

—

Elo

High is better

1,398

EloHigh is better

1,495+7%

Code Elo

High is better

1,422

Code EloHigh is better

1,520+7%

LiveBench

High is better

60.6%

LiveBenchHigh is better

68%+12%

SWE-bench

High is better

58.8%

SWE-benchHigh is better

67.5%+15%

GPQA

High is better

73.4%

GPQAHigh is better

83.2%+13%

TTFT

Low is better

+129%140 ms

TTFTLow is better

320 ms

Speed

High is better

+124%152 tok/s

SpeedHigh is better

68 tok/s

In $

Low is better

$0.45/1M

In $Low is better

$0.3/1M+50%

Out $

Low is better

$3.2/1M

Out $Low is better

$1.2/1M+167%

Context

High is better

+100%262k

ContextHigh is better

131k

Interactive Simulator

Workload Cost & Savings Calculator

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

Save up to 55% with Qwen QwQ 32B

Monthly Volume50M tokens/mo

Quick Presets:

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

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

Qwen3.8 27B$63.75 / mo

In: $15.75Out: $48.00

Qwen QwQ 32B$28.50 / mo

In: $10.50Out: $18.00

Estimated Cost Delta

Qwen QwQ 32B is estimated to save $35.25/month ($423/year).

Based on 50M tokens (30% gen)

Key Selection Recommendations

1
Qwen QwQ 32B:Pick Qwen QwQ 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 QwQ 32B:Pick Qwen QwQ 32B as the default general assistant.

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen QwQ 32B

Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).

High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32B

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen QwQ 32B

Qwen QwQ 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen QwQ 32B	Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen QwQ 32B	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen QwQ 32B	Qwen QwQ 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-3-8-27b-vs-qwq-32b/opengraph-image for crawlers.

PNG

CompareLLM Matrix

Verified head-to-head card

LIVE

Alibaba

Qwen3.8 27B

Elo 1,398

LiveBench60.6%

SWE-bench58.8%

Speed152 tok/s

Output cost$3.2/1M

Alibaba

Qwen QwQ 32B

Elo 1,495

LiveBench68%

SWE-bench67.5%

Speed68 tok/s

Output cost$1.2/1M

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better overall, Qwen3.8 27B or Qwen QwQ 32B?: Qwen QwQ 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,495). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.
Which is better at coding, Qwen3.8 27B or Qwen QwQ 32B?: Qwen QwQ 32B leads SWE-bench at 67.5% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.
Which is cheaper to run in production?: Qwen QwQ 32B output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.
Which is faster, Qwen3.8 27B or Qwen QwQ 32B?: 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 Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen QwQ 32B 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. Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen QwQ 32B Elo cells are dated snapshots from the named source — we do not compute Arena ourselves.

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons

All Qwen3.8 27B matchups →|All Qwen QwQ 32B matchups →

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

Qwen3.8 27B vs Qwen QwQ 32B benchmark

Interactive Comparison Diagram

Matchup Breakdown

Tug-of-War Matchup Matrix

Category wins across intelligence, speed, and pricing efficiency.

Qwen3.8 27B (3)vsQwen QwQ 32B (7)

Qwen3.8 27B: 3W (30%)Overall: Qwen QwQ 32BQwen QwQ 32B: 7W (70%)

← Qwen3.8 27BQwen QwQ 32B →

Qwen QwQ 32B (5/5)

Intelligence & Reasoning

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

Preference Elo

1,398vs1,495

Coding Elo

1,422vs1,520

SWE-bench

58.8%vs67.5%

LiveBench

60.6%vs68%

GPQA Diamond

73.4%vs83.2%

Qwen3.8 27B: 0WQwen QwQ 32B: 5W

Qwen3.8 27B (2/2)

Speed & Latency

Generation throughput and time to first token responsiveness

Output speed

152 tok/svs68 tok/s

Time to first token

140 msvs320 ms

Qwen3.8 27B: 2WQwen QwQ 32B: 0W

Qwen QwQ 32B (2/3)

Pricing & Capacity

Cost per million tokens and max context window length

Output price

$3.2/1Mvs$1.2/1M

Input price

$0.45/1Mvs$0.3/1M

Context window

262kvs131k

Qwen3.8 27B: 1WQwen QwQ 32B: 2W

Recommended Workload Routing

Repo / coding agentsQwen QwQ 32B

Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).

High-volume chatQwen QwQ 32B

Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).

Voice / low-latency UIQwen3.8 27B

Lower TTFT (140 ms).

Long-document RAGQwen3.8 27B

Larger window (262k).

Screenshots / visionQwen QwQ 32B

Qwen QwQ 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Target Workload	Recommended Pick	Evaluation Rationale
Repo / coding agents	Qwen QwQ 32B	Higher SWE-bench (67.5%).
High-volume chat	Qwen QwQ 32B	Lower output list price ($1.2/1M).
Voice / low-latency UI	Qwen3.8 27B	Lower TTFT (140 ms).
Long-document RAG	Qwen3.8 27B	Larger window (262k).
Screenshots / vision	Qwen QwQ 32B	Qwen QwQ 32B is the side marked multimodal in the catalog.

Frequently Asked Questions

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

Qwen QwQ 32B has the higher preference Elo in our latest snapshot (1,495). “Better” still depends on coding, price, and latency — see the table.

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

Qwen QwQ 32B leads SWE-bench at 67.5% vs 58.8%. SWE-bench is one harness, not your repo.

Which is cheaper to run in production?

Qwen QwQ 32B output tokens are $1.2/1M versus $3.2/1M. Input prices and retry rates still move the real bill.

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

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 Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen QwQ 32B 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. Qwen3.8 27B and Qwen QwQ 32B 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 QwQ 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen QwQ 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

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen QwQ 32B

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 QwQ 32B

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen QwQ 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

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen QwQ 32B

Frequently Asked Questions

Related news

Similar Head-to-Head Comparisons