Celeris-1 vs Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: Celeris-1 by Celeris or Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) scores 15.1 points higher (21.4 vs 6.3) but costs 19× as much to run the benchmark ($1145 vs $60.0; premium vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) when you need intelligence above 6.3, and Celeris-1 when 6.3 is enough.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 6.3 | 21.4 | +239.7% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 3.4× more intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $59.99 | $1,145.36 | +1809.3% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 19× more expensive |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 0.87s | 111.13s | +12673.6% Qwen3.6 27B (Reasonin… is 12673.6% slower |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $0.20 / $0.70 | $0.60 / $3.60 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) vs Celeris-1: 239.7% more intelligence, 1809.3% more cost to run the AA benchmark, and 12673.6% slower end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- Celeris-1 is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Haiku 5.5 (Medium) scores 34.50 for $56.4.
- Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, GPT-6.1 Sol (Max) scores 51.80 for $1082.
Celeris-1Qwen3.6 27B (Reasoning)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-6-27b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/celeris-1/qwen3-6-27b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill