Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs Nova Pro 1.0
Qwen3.5-27B vs Nova Pro 1.0
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 15 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Qwen3.5-27B or Nova Pro 1.0? The short answer
- Qwen3.5-27B is cheaper: $0.74 against $1.40 per million tokens, 47% less.
- Qwen3.5-27B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 22.9 against 7.0.
- On our business benchmarks, Qwen3.5-27B ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.
- On our business benchmarks, Nova Pro 1.0 ranks higher for sticking to the facts.
At a glance
| Qwen3.5-27B | Nova Pro 1.0 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.27 in · $2.16 out | $0.80 in · $3.20 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.74 | $1.40 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.54 (Alibaba) | $1.40 (Amazon Bedrock) |
| Intelligence Index | 22.9 | 7.0 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 300,000 tokens |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among models available today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. The better rank is in green.
| Use case | Qwen3.5-27B | Nova Pro 1.0 |
|---|---|---|
| Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls | 144 of 161 | 152 of 161 |
| Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge | 78 of 195 | 186 of 195 |
| WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality | 95 of 187 | 173 of 187 |
| Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers | 122 of 153 | 11 of 153 |
Every shared result
| Benchmark | Metric | Qwen3.5-27B | Nova Pro 1.0 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Business, management and financeArena rating | 1,408 | 1,279 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Creative writingArena rating | 1,358 | 1,237 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Expert promptsArena rating | 1,441 | 1,273 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Instruction followingArena rating | 1,400 | 1,277 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | OverallArena rating | 1,409 | 1,290 |
| Arena (formerly LMArena)reported | Writing, literature and languageArena rating | 1,380 | 1,274 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score | 22.9 | 7.00 |
| Artificial Analysisreported | GPQA Diamond% of questions | 85.8% | 49.9% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Humanity's Last Exam% of questions | 23.9% | 3.2% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | IFBench% of instructions | 75.6% | 38.1% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions | 77.7% | 21.0% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks | 32.6% | 6.1% |
| Artificial Analysisreported | Τ²-bench telecom% of tasks | 93.9% | 14.0% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Answer rate% of documents | 99.8% | 99.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboardreported | Hallucination rate% of summaries | 12.1% | 5.1% |
Bold green marks the better value on that metric. Where a source reports ranges that overlap, the difference may not be meaningful; see the benchmark page for ranges.
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5-27B better than Nova Pro 1.0?
It depends on the task. Among models available today, on our benchmarks and licensed sources, Qwen3.5-27B ranks higher for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing; Nova Pro 1.0 ranks higher for sticking to the facts.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or Nova Pro 1.0?
Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.74 per million tokens (three input to one output), against $1.40 for Nova Pro 1.0.
Run Qwen3.5-27B and Nova Pro 1.0 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.