Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 Turbo vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 Turbo OpenAI

30.5

Rank #292 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 Turbo scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 38.3 to 9.0.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 6.7% for GPT-4 Turbo and 86.7% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $10 / $30 for GPT-4 Turbo.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.

Side by side

GPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index30.539.9
Released2023-11-062026-07-15
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window128K1M
Max output4K131K
Input $ / M tokens$10$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$30$0.13
Results tracked367

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 33.8 (#249), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
WeirdML18%—
BigCodeBench Instruct48.2%—
LMArena Coding1268—
BigCodeBench Complete58.2%—
HumanEval+86.6%—
MBPP+73.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: —, Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
METR Time Horizons36.7%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 15.3 (#317), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
Chess Puzzles6%23%
Epoch Capabilities Index127.25144.64
SimpleBench25.1%—
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts1251—
Mystery Game Puzzles—15%
DTBench61.6%—
LMCA9.8%—
ForecastBench59.4—

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 9.0 (#322), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)0.7%19.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20256.7%86.7%
LMArena Math1272—
MATH Level 546.7%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4 Turbo: 24.3 (#268), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond46.6%82.3%
Confabulations28.4%—
LMArena Expert1223—
MMLU81.3%—

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 30.6 (#110), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Vision1090—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 40.5 (#216), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Non-English1245—
LMArena Chinese1242—
LMArena French1276—
LMArena German1259—
LMArena Japanese1194—
LMArena Korean1187—
LMArena Russian1259—
LMArena Spanish1260—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 65.8 (#216), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1249—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 38.0 (#206), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1254—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-4 Turbo: 47.7 (#206), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4 TurboQwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1272—
LMArena Creative Writing1269—
LMArena Multi-Turn1267—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 Turbo better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 30.5 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 Turbo or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GPT-4 Turbo lists at $10 and $30.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4 Turbo and Qwen3.7 Flash share?

5 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 Turbo has 36 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.

Related comparisons

Go deeper