Sonar vs Qwen3.6 27B
Updated October 21, 2026. 3 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Sonar has the edge where output tokens cost 2.7x less.
- Shared results
- 3
- Sonar only
- 2
- Qwen3.6 27B only
- 21
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, so no call is made.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B leads, 21.4 against 7.7.
Same board, both measured
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 18.5.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B takes 262K tokens against 127K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Sonar
Sonar $0.0015, Qwen3.6 27B $0.0018 per turn.
List prices
Cost per solved task
One SWE-bench Verified task, solved
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has the number, $1.30.
Directional only
At a glance
- Coding index
- Sonar not benchmarked, Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Reasoning, 27.7 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run): Sonar 47.1% against Qwen3.6 27B 84.2%, 37.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Sonar $1.00 against Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 per million output tokens, 2.7x apart.
- Context window
- Sonar takes 127K 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.
| Category | Sonar | Bars | Qwen3.6 27B | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 0 | 1 | ||
| Reasoning | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | Not measured | 53.7 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | Not measured | 70.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 11.9% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 29.5% | Not measured | Only Sonar measured |
| SciCode | Not measured | 42.8% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | Not measured | 34.8% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 7.7 | 21.4 | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 146.2 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | Not measured | 18.5 | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | Not measured | 94.2% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 47.1% | 84.2% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.9% | 23.1% | Qwen3.6 27B |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 85.9% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 7.0% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 91.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 35.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | Not measured | 53.2% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | Not measured | 62.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | Not measured | 71.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | Not measured | 68.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 68.9% | Not measured | Only Sonar measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| SAGE (Vals AI) | Not measured | 45.6% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| IFBench | Not measured | 67.6% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | Not measured | 77.3% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| DTBench | Not measured | 78.1% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 34.5% | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Sonar costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.6 27B costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen3.6 27B 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.
| Specification | Perplexity Sonar | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Perplexity | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | Open weights |
| Released | January 27, 2025 | April 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 127K | 262K |
| Input $/Mtok | $1.00 | $0.45 |
| Output $/Mtok | $1.00 | $2.70 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | 36.8 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | $1.30 |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Sonar better than Qwen3.6 27B for coding?
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a coding score, 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index; Sonar has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Sonar has the edge where output tokens cost 2.7x less.
Which is cheaper, Sonar or Qwen3.6 27B?
Sonar costs $1.00 per million input tokens and $1.00 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, Sonar or Qwen3.6 27B?
Qwen3.6 27B, with 262K tokens against 127K.
How many benchmarks is the Sonar vs Qwen3.6 27B comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Sonar'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.