Noometry

Model comparison

ERNIE 5.0 0110 vs Qwen3.5 27B

ERNIE 5.0 0110 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.8 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.

ERNIE 5.0 0110 Baidu

41.8

Rank #129 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. ERNIE 5.0 0110 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 1 category; 6 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5 27B leads 27.5 to 17.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is NYT Connections (extended): 10.3% for ERNIE 5.0 0110 and 47.9% for Qwen3.5 27B.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

ERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
ProviderBaiduAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.841.9
Released—2026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.30
Output $ / M tokens—$2.40
Results tracked2028

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding ERNIE 5.0 0110 leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 43.0 (#94), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding14551427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

ERNIE 5.0 0110: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Qwen3.5 27B leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 17.0 (#297), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
NYT Connections (extended)10.3%47.9%
Thematic Generalization41.7%45.5%
LMArena Hard Prompts14451414
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Too close to call

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 39.3 (#110), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math14371429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge ERNIE 5.0 0110 leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 39.8 (#128), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert14281428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Too close to call

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 39.9 (#53), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision12491241

Multilingual ERNIE 5.0 0110 leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 54.1 (#49), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English14361390
LMArena Chinese15121478
LMArena French14671410
LMArena German14601393
LMArena Japanese13821345
LMArena Korean14061358
LMArena Russian14461390
LMArena Spanish14731407

Instruction Following ERNIE 5.0 0110 leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 74.5 (#92), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following14131393

Long Context Too close to call

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 43.4 (#95), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query14221413

Writing & Preference ERNIE 5.0 0110 leads

ERNIE 5.0 0110: 63.1 (#66), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkERNIE 5.0 0110Qwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text14451409
LMArena Creative Writing14261362
LMArena Multi-Turn14341410

Frequently asked questions

Is ERNIE 5.0 0110 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

ERNIE 5.0 0110 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.8 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Is ERNIE 5.0 0110 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

ERNIE 5.0 0110 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 43.0 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do ERNIE 5.0 0110 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. ERNIE 5.0 0110 has 20 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper