LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.5-27B

Updated October 21, 2026. 45 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Llama 4 ScoutMeta Llama
Coding
9.1
Overall
6.5
Output $/M
$0.30
0
Qwen3.5-27BQwen
Coding
22.6
Overall
22.9
Output $/M
$2.16
45
vs boards won of 45 shared

Decision reading

Pick Qwen3.5-27B for coding: it scores 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 9.1 for Llama 4 Scout.

Pick Llama 4 Scout when output tokens cost 7.2x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.31M against 262K tokens.

Shared results
45
Llama 4 Scout only
35
Qwen3.5-27B only
8
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

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
Llama 4 Scout 9.1 from 1 benchmark, Qwen3.5-27B 22.6 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
Agentic work, 78.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
τ²-Bench Telecom: Llama 4 Scout 15.5% against Qwen3.5-27B 93.9%, 78.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Llama 4 Scout $0.30 against Qwen3.5-27B $2.16 per million output tokens, 7.2x apart.
Context window
Llama 4 Scout takes 1.31M tokens, Qwen3.5-27B 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
CategoryLlama 4 ScoutBarsQwen3.5-27BTies
Coding03
Intelligence01
Agentic work01
Reasoning07
Math02
Knowledge04
General027
All shared boards045
CodingLike-for-likeFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index03
Coding benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
SWE-bench Verified9.1%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1358Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
AA Coding Index8.2Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)38.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)29.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
SciCode21.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)1.5%32.6%Qwen3.5-27B
WeirdMLNot measured39.5%Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
ALE-BenchNot measured349.4Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Text: coding12861427Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: software and IT12861431Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1346Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1386Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 25 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
AA Intelligence Index6.522.9Qwen3.5-27B
Epoch Capabilities Index129.6Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Agentic workLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Agentic work benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
AA Agentic Index0.5Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
τ²-Bench Telecom15.5%93.9%Qwen3.5-27B
Vending-Bench 2Not measured$202Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index07
Reasoning benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
GPQA Diamond47.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)58.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)58.7%85.8%Qwen3.5-27B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.8%23.9%Qwen3.5-27B
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)51.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
ARC-AGI0.5%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
ARC-AGI-20.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12661415Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: expert12351427Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12931429Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: diagrams11251249Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: homework11481256Qwen3.5-27B
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
AIME19.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)79.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MGSM (Vals AI)88.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
AA Math Index14.0Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)14.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
OTIS Mock AIME7.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MATH level 562.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: math12871429Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: mathematical work12861429Qwen3.5-27B
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
MMLU Pro69.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)72.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)46.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)55.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedQA (Vals AI)50.9%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedCode (Vals AI)23.3%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)75.2%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text: science12781437Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12751425Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: legal and government12851405Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: business and finance12571399Qwen3.5-27B
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
Web designDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
Design Arena: websites750Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: UI components767Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: game dev773Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: data viz896Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Design Arena: all code categories790Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
Neither model has a result on the other 4 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index027
General benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)34.8%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)50.6%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
IFBench39.5%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)27.7%77.7%Qwen3.5-27B
DTBench57.9%82.4%Qwen3.5-27B
LMCA12.0%34.0%Qwen3.5-27B
Fiction.LiveBench36.0%Not measuredOnly Llama 4 Scout measured
LMArena Text12791409Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: instruction following12481393Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: creative writing12491362Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision11181241Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: English13041425Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: non-English12521390Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Chinese12551478Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: German12731392Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Japanese12061346Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Korean12071359Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: French12831410Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Spanish12781407Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Russian12631390Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: Polish12651375Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: multi-turn12801410Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: longer queries12651413Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: writing and language12691380Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12421363Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: English11431246Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: Chinese11061301Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: reading text11171246Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: humor11021227Qwen3.5-27B
LMArena Vision: captioningNot measured1170Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing thingsNot measured1210Only Qwen3.5-27B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing11261224Qwen3.5-27B
Neither model has a result on the other 14 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
BenchmarkLlama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27BLeader
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

Llama 4 Scout$0.0003Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.0014Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Llama 4 Scout$0.0059Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.020Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Llama 4 Scout$0.023Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-27B$0.076Fits in one request

Llama 4 Scout 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 Llama 4 Scout and Qwen3.5-27B
SpecificationMeta Llama 4 ScoutQwen3.5-27B
MakerMeta LlamaQwen
WeightsOpen weightsOpen weights
ReleasedApril 5, 2025February 25, 2026
Context window1.31M262K
Input $/Mtok$0.10$0.27
Output $/Mtok$0.30$2.16
Coding index9.122.6
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved task$1.276Not computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Llama 4 Scout better than Qwen3.5-27B for coding?

Pick Qwen3.5-27B for coding: it scores 22.6 on the Vibe Coding Index against 9.1 for Llama 4 Scout. Pick Llama 4 Scout when output tokens cost 7.2x less, or when the context window is larger, 1.31M against 262K tokens.

Which is cheaper, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.5-27B?

Llama 4 Scout costs $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.30 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-27B costs $0.27 and $2.16. Cost per solved task is known for Llama 4 Scout only.

Which has the bigger context window, Llama 4 Scout or Qwen3.5-27B?

Llama 4 Scout, with 1.31M tokens against 262K.

How many benchmarks is the Llama 4 Scout vs Qwen3.5-27B comparison based on?

45 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Llama 4 Scout's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.5-27B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next