Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Lite 1.0 vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B leads Nova Lite 1.0 on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index, 21.4 to 6.7, and Nova Lite 1.0 costs 11.3x less per output token ($0.24 vs $2.70 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 7 benchmarks have a result for both.

Nova Lite 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.24
0
Qwen3.6 27BQwen
Coding
36.8
Overall
45.3
Output $/M
$2.70
7
vs boards won of 7 shared

Nova Lite 1.0 or Qwen3.6 27B: which to pick

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Lite 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 11.3x cheaper ($0.24 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens).

Shared results
7
Nova Lite 1.0 only
34
Qwen3.6 27B only
17
Like-for-like categories
5 of 9

Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Lite 1.0 not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Agentic work, 76.6 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Nova Lite 1.0 17.5% against Qwen3.6 27B 94.2%, 76.6 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Lite 1.0 $0.24 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 11.3x apart.
Context window
Nova Lite 1.0 takes 300K tokens, Qwen3.6 27B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Lite 1.0BarsQwen3.6 27BTies
Coding01
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning02
General02
All shared boards07
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
Coding benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Coding IndexNot measured53.7Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)Not measured70.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured11.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)16.7%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured42.8%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)0.8%34.8%Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text: coding1239Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: software and IT1241Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.721.4Qwen3.6 27B
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured146.2Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Agentic IndexNot measured18.5Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
τ²-Bench Telecom17.5%94.2%Qwen3.6 27B
Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)43.3%84.2%Qwen3.6 27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)4.3%23.1%Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured85.9%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured7.0%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts1220Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: expert1201Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English1226Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured91.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured35.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text: math1227Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: mathematical work1235Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
CaseLaw (Vals AI)Not measured53.2%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)Not measured62.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)Not measured71.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)Not measured68.3%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)59.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
MMLU77.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science1232Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare1213Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: legal and government1238Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: business and finance1219Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
General benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured45.6%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
IFBench34.1%67.6%Qwen3.6 27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)19.0%77.3%Qwen3.6 27B
DTBenchNot measured78.1%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMCANot measured34.5%Only Qwen3.6 27B measured
LMArena Text1229Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: instruction following1205Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: creative writing1197Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Vision990Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: English1243Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: non-English1208Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Chinese1225Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: German1229Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1153Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1153Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: French1238Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Spanish1226Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Russian1216Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: multi-turn1199Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: longer queries1234Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: writing and language1211Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and media1176Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
LMArena Vision: English999Not measuredOnly Nova Lite 1.0 measured
Neither model has a result on the other 23 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
BenchmarkNova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0002Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.0018Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.0037Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.031Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Lite 1.0$0.014Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 27B$0.117Fits in one request

Nova Lite 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Lite 1.0 and Qwen3.6 27B
SpecificationAmazon Nova Lite 1.0Qwen3.6 27B
MakerAmazonQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024April 27, 2026
Context window300K262K
Input $/Mtok$0.06$0.45
Output $/Mtok$0.24$2.70
Coding indexNot benchmarked36.8
Independent measurements behind it02
Cost per solved taskNot computable$1.30
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Lite 1.0 better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?

Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Lite 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick Nova Lite 1.0 for output tokens 11.3x cheaper ($0.24 vs $2.70 per million) and a larger context window (300K against 262K tokens).

Which is cheaper, Nova Lite 1.0 or Qwen3.6 27B?

Nova Lite 1.0 costs $0.06 per million input tokens and $0.24 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 and $2.70. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Lite 1.0 or Qwen3.6 27B?

Nova Lite 1.0, with 300K tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Lite 1.0 vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?

7 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. Nova Lite 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.6 27B's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next