Qwen3.6 27B vs Hy4
Hy4 leads Qwen3.6 27B on coding, 65.2 to 36.8 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Hy4 costs 2.2x less per output token ($1.2505 vs $2.70 per million). Updated November 5, 2026; 1 benchmarks have a result for both.
Qwen3.6 27B or Hy4: which to pick
Pick Hy4 for coding: it scores 65.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 36.8 for Qwen3.6 27B.
Qwen3.6 27B is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.
- Shared results
- 1
- Qwen3.6 27B only
- 22
- Hy4 only
- 5
- Like-for-like categories
- 1 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.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
Hy4
Hy4 scores 65.2 against 36.8.
2 benchmarks behind each score
Agentic work
AA Agentic Index
No call
Only Qwen3.6 27B has a AA Agentic Index result, 18.5.
Directional only
General
Vals Index
No call
Only Hy4 has a Vals Index result, 59.4%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Hy4
Hy4 takes 1.05M tokens against 262K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Hy4
Qwen3.6 27B $0.0018, Hy4 $0.0010 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
- Qwen3.6 27B 36.8 from 2 benchmarks, Hy4 65.2 from 2 benchmarks.
- Widest category
- Coding, 69.1 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI): Qwen3.6 27B 11.9% against Hy4 81.0%, 69.1 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Qwen3.6 27B $2.70 against Hy4 $1.2505 per million output tokens, 2.2x apart.
- Context window
- Qwen3.6 27B takes 262K tokens, Hy4 1.05M.
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 | Qwen3.6 27B | Bars | Hy4 | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | 0 | 1 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 1 |
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index01
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 53.7 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI) | 70.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI) | Not measured | 39.4% | Only Hy4 measured |
| Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI) | 11.9% | 81.0% | Hy4 |
| SciCode | 42.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run) | 34.8% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 44 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.7 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index5 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Agentic Index | 18.5 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 34.4% | Only Hy4 measured |
| Legal Research Bench (Vals AI) | Not measured | 41.4% | Only Hy4 measured |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI) | Not measured | 12.5% | Only Hy4 measured |
| τ²-Bench Telecom | 94.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 84.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 85.9% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | 7.0% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 20 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | 91.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | 35.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 12 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 53.2% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 62.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 71.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 68.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vals Index | Not measured | 59.4% | Only Hy4 measured |
| IFBench | 67.6% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Long context reasoning (AA-LCR) | 77.3% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| DTBench | 78.1% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| LMCA | 34.5% | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1015 | Not measured | Only Qwen3.6 27B measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | Qwen3.6 27B | Hy4 | 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
Hy4 costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Hy4 costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Hy4 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 | Qwen3.6 27B | Tencent Hy4 |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | Qwen | Tencent |
| Weights | Open weights | Open weights |
| Released | April 27, 2026 | November 4, 2026 |
| Context window | 262K | 1.05M |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.45 | $0.417 |
| Output $/Mtok | $2.70 | $1.2505 |
| Coding index | 36.8 | 65.2 |
| Independent measurements behind it | 2 | 2 |
| Cost per solved task | $1.30 | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is Qwen3.6 27B better than Hy4 for coding?
Pick Hy4 for coding: it scores 65.2 on the Vibe Coding Index against 36.8 for Qwen3.6 27B. Qwen3.6 27B is neither cheaper nor larger in context, and leads no benchmark both models were measured on.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.6 27B or Hy4?
Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.45 per million input tokens and $2.70 per million output tokens; Hy4 costs $0.417 and $1.2505. Cost per solved task is known for Qwen3.6 27B only.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.6 27B or Hy4?
Hy4, with 1.05M tokens against 262K.
How many benchmarks is the Qwen3.6 27B vs Hy4 comparison based on?
1 benchmarks have a result for both models as of November 5, 2026. Qwen3.6 27B's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Hy4's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.