Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 24 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 OpenAI

29.1

Rank #316 Confirmed

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.5

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 24 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 8 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 37.4 to 10.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for GPT-4 and 84.4% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $60 for GPT-4.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

GPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.142.5
Released2023-03-142026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window8K1M
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$30$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$60$0.40
Results tracked3832

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

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 31.6 (#283), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Coding12541412
LMArena WebDev—1244
WeirdML12.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46%—
BigCodeBench Complete57.2%—
ALE-Bench—221.8
HumanEval+79.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
METR Time Horizons36.1%—
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 17.8 (#289), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
Chess Puzzles4%21%
LMArena Hard Prompts12411403
Mystery Game Puzzles12%20%
DTBench62.7%82.9%
LMCA17.1%29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index125.89143.98
BIG-Bench Hard75.1%—
ForecastBench57.8—
HellaSwag95.3%—
WinoGrande87.5%—

Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 10.8 (#309), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%84.4%
LMArena Math12691407
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
MATH Level 523%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K92%—

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 18.4 (#282), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond35.7%82.3%
LMArena Expert12111407
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
MMLU86.4%—
TriviaQA84.8%—

Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 40.6 (#215), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English12461385
LMArena Chinese12421446
LMArena French12831412
LMArena German12511390
LMArena Japanese12091368
LMArena Korean11841344
LMArena Russian12511379
LMArena Spanish12611400

Instruction Following Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 65.3 (#222), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following12411374

Long Context Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 37.7 (#212), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query12441392

Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads

GPT-4: 34.9 (#268), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text12631397
LMArena Creative Writing12441343
LMArena Multi-Turn12571393
EQ-Bench Creative Writing752—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-4 lists at $30 and $60.

Is GPT-4 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?

Qwen3.5-Flash scores higher on coding benchmarks: 34.2 versus 31.6 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

24 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper