Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. Qwen3.6 27BvsSolar Mini 4
Updated Sep 2026

Qwen3.6 27BvsSolar Mini 4

Solar Mini 4 is cheaper than Qwen3.6 27B at $0.05/M vs $0.325/M input tokens.

Qwen3.6 27B and Solar Mini 4 compared across 18 shared prompts
SpecQwen3.6 27BSolar Mini 4
Input price$0.325/M tokens$0.05/M tokens
Output price$3.25/M tokens$0.2/M tokens
Context window256K tokens524K tokens
WeightsOpen—
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedApr 2026Sep 2026
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 18 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

Qwen3.6 27B503 words
Entry & Capital Structure (End FY2025) Item Calculation Value ($M) Enterprise Value 12.0x × $120M EBITDA 1,440.0 Term Loan 4.0x × $120M 480.0 Mezzanine 1.5x × $120M 180.0 Transaction Fees 2.0% × EV (equity-funded) 28.8 Equity Invested EV – Debt + Fees 808.8 LBO Model Summary (FY2026–FY2030) All values in $M.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 41,718 words
518.51935 New TL: 276.34682 - 86.82747 = 189.51935 Mezz: PIK 194.8377888 * 0.02 = 3.896755776 New Mezz: 194.8377888 + 3.896755776 = 198.734544576 Ending Balances: TL: 189.52 Mezz: 198.73 Total Debt: 388.25 Exit (End of FY2030): Exit EBITDA: 206.6252668 Exit Multiple: 10.5x Exit EV: 206.6252668 * 10.5 = 2,169.5653014…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

Qwen3.6 27B1,446 words
To trace a counterfactual where the transistor is invented in 1920 rather than 1947, we must first acknowledge the scientific and industrial prerequisites: solid-state physics, crystal growth techniques, precision microfabrication, and materials science would need to mature decades earlier.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 41,539 words
This is a fascinating counterfactual. I need to note upfront that the scientific and engineering foundations for a working transistor did not exist in 1920. Quantum mechanics was barely a decade old, band theory of solids hadn't been developed, and semiconductor physics (doping, p-n junctions, electron mobility) was…
Read the full answer

Explain Like I'm a Specific Expert

Explain how a large language model (like GPT or Claude) learns and generates text to each of these three audiences: 1. **An experienced…

Qwen3.6 27B1,091 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer Think of an LLM not as a simple autocomplete, but as a highly optimized, probabilistic state machine built on a dynamic routing architecture. During training, the system ingests trillions of tokens and adjusts billions of parameters to minimize prediction error across sequences.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 4893 words
For the Experienced Software Engineer From a systems architecture perspective, the skepticism that "predicting the next word" yields intelligence is understandable, but it stems from viewing the model through a deterministic, code-based lens rather than a probabilistic, distributed-systems lens.
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

Qwen3.6 27B415 words
This architecture contains several critical flaws that will cause data loss, severe latency, security vulnerabilities, and scaling failures under real-world load. Below is a systematic breakdown of failure modes, race conditions, and bottlenecks, with targeted solutions and trade-offs. 🔹 I.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 41,165 words
Here’s a systematic breakdown of the architectural weaknesses, failure modes, and scaling bottlenecks in your design, along with specific solutions and their trade-offs. Real-Time Synchronization & WebSocket Affinity Issue: Round-robin load balancing is stateless, but WebSockets are stateful and long-lived.
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

Qwen3.6 27B346 words
🍪 Midnight Crinkle Cookies These rich, fudgy cookies are the ultimate pantry rescue. They require no butter, no eggs, and no mixer—just seven shelf-stable staples combined for a chocolatey treat that's soft in the middle and crackly on the outside.
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 4266 words
🌟 Golden Chickpea & Rice Skillet This comforting one-pot dish combines hearty chickpeas, tender rice, and a warm blend of spices. It's a perfect way to use up pantry staples for a quick, flavorful meal.
Read the full answer

Ethical Dilemma with Stakeholders

You're the CEO of a pharmaceutical company. Your best-selling drug ($2B annual revenue, used by 4 million patients for chronic pain) has…

Qwen3.6 27B1,346 words
As CEO, my primary fiduciary and ethical duty is to patients, regulators, and long-term shareholder value. The "6-month reporting timeline" cited by legal is almost certainly a misunderstanding of regulatory processes (likely conflating initial adverse event reporting with full label amendment review).
Read the full answer
Solar Mini 41,430 words
This is a high-stakes crisis requiring immediate, decisive action that prioritizes patient safety, regulatory compliance, and long-term corporate integrity over short-term stock performance.
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
Qwen3.6 27B
Qwen3.6 27B
Solar Mini 4
Solar Mini 4

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, nothing separates them.

Solar Mini 4 costs 16x less per token.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

Qwen3.6 27B
Input
$0.33
Output
$3.25
Solar Mini 4
Input
$0.05
6.5× cheaper
Output
$0.20
16× cheaper

Solar Mini 4 is cheaper on both: 6.5× input, 16× output.

Where to run it

7 hosts, cheapest first

Qwen3.6 27B6 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
CChutesfp8$0.30 in·$2.00 out·262k·95.6% upSSiliconFlowfp8$0.30 in·$3.20 out·262k·96.3% upPPhala$0.32 in·$2.70 out·262k·95.6% upDDeepInfrafp8$0.32 in·$3.20 out·262k·99.4% upVVenicefp8$0.33 in·$3.25 out·256k·97.7% upAlibaba Cloud$0.45 in·$2.70 out·262k·100% up
Solar Mini 41 host
HostInOutContextUptime
UUpstage$0.05 in·$0.20 out·524k·100% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

Qwen3.6 27B is developed by Qwen while Solar Mini 4 is developed by Upstage. Qwen3.6 27B has a 256K token context window vs Solar Mini 4's 524K. You can compare their actual outputs across 18 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. Qwen3.6 27B and Solar Mini 4 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 18 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

Qwen3.6 27B costs $0.325/M input tokens and Solar Mini 4 costs $0.05/M input tokens. Solar Mini 4 is $0.28/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of Qwen3.6 27B and Solar Mini 4 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

Qwen3.6 27B logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.6 27B logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoCommand A+ logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3.6 27B logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3.6 27B logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026
Solar Mini 4 logoGPT-6 Luna logo
Solar Mini 4 vs GPT-6 LunaLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

Qwen3.6 27B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3.6 27B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3.6 27B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
Solar Mini 4 logoSolar Pro 4 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Solar Pro 4Same lab
Solar Mini 4 logoSolar Pro 3 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Solar Pro 3Same lab
Solar Mini 4 logoKimi K2 Thinking logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Kimi K2 ThinkingNew provider
Solar Mini 4 logoKimi K2.5 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Kimi K2.5New provider
Solar Mini 4 logoKimi K2.6 logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Kimi K2.6New provider
Solar Mini 4 logoKimi K2.7 Code logo
Solar Mini 4 vs Kimi K2.7 CodeNew provider

Model pages

Qwen3.6 27B logo
Qwen3.6 27B55 outputs, specs and price
Solar Mini 4 logo
Solar Mini 419 outputs, specs and price
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare Models
  • All Models
  • Image Comparison
  • Audio Comparison
  • Image Generation
  • Best AI For...
  • Arena
  • API Pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model Updates
  • Provider Status
  • AI Creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • RSS Feed