Compare / Qwen3.5-27B vs Llama 4 Scout
Qwen3.5-27B vs Llama 4 Scout
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 18 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 18 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 13 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-13-2e2420e3c5cc). See also Alibaba vs Meta, every model from both labs.
Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout? The short answer
Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 8.1). Pick Llama 4 Scout if cost matters more: it costs 2.6 times less per token.
- Llama 4 Scout is cheaper: $0.28 against $0.74 per million tokens, 2.6 times less.
- Qwen3.5-27B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 22.9 against 8.1.
- Qwen3.5-27B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 5 Apr 2025 for Llama 4 Scout.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.5-27B does better for reasoning and knowledge and writing; Llama 4 Scout for sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.5-27B | Llama 4 Scout | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.27 in · $2.16 out | $0.18 in · $0.59 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.74 | $0.28 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.54 (Alibaba) | $0.15 (DeepInfra, FP8) |
| Intelligence Index | 22.9 | 8.1 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | 46 |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 1,310,720 tokens |
| Released | 24 Feb 2026 (newer) | 5 Apr 2025 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| 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 the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3.5-27B | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 129 · 231 of 387 measured | 1,409 | 1,322 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 128 · 225 of 380 measured | 1,408 | 1,316 |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 145 · 223 of 385 measured | 1,358 | 1,289 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 86 · 197 of 243 measured | 22.9 | 8.1 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 74 · 185 of 231 measured | 85.8% | 58.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 95 · 221 of 242 measured | 23.9% | 3.8% |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 99 · 169 of 230 measured | 42.4think-prefill reasoning | 26.7 |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 49 · 99 of 230 measured | 11.0%think-prefill reasoning | 19.0% |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 147 · 66 of 230 measured | 0.33no reasoning | 0.36 |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results | ||
| Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 80 · 38 of 104 measured | 12.1% | 7.7% |
| Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 65 of 104 measured | 99.8% | 99.0% |
Show all 18 results (7 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.5-27B | Llama 4 Scout |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 112 · 228 of 338 measured | 1,441 | 1,308 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 237 of 387 measured | 1,401 | 1,299 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 135 · 224 of 386 measured | 1,380 | 1,305 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 24 · 138 of 195 measured | 75.6% | 39.5% |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 63 · 190 of 233 measured | 77.7% | 27.7% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 61 · 175 of 190 measured | 32.6% | 1.5% |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 28 · 176 of 193 measured | 93.9% | 15.5% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5-27B better than Llama 4 Scout?
Pick Qwen3.5-27B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 22.9 against 8.1). Pick Llama 4 Scout if cost matters more: it costs 2.6 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout is cheaper: $0.28 against $0.74 per million tokens, 2.6 times less.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 145 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 150 for Llama 4 Scout.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 82 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 167 for Llama 4 Scout.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Qwen3.5-27B ranks 98 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 164 for Llama 4 Scout.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout ranks 47 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 121 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-27B or Llama 4 Scout?
Llama 4 Scout: 1,310,720 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3.5-27B.
Run Qwen3.5-27B and Llama 4 Scout on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.