Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 vs Qwen3.6 Flash

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 OpenAI

29.1

Rank #316 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

38.8

Rank #182 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 39.0 to 10.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for GPT-4 and 84.4% for Qwen3.6 Flash.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $60 for GPT-4.
  • Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

GPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.138.8
Released2023-03-142026-04-27
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window8K1M
Max output8K66K
Input $ / M tokens$30$0.19
Output $ / M tokens$60$1.13
Results tracked3813

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-4: 31.6 (#283), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
WeirdML12.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46%—
LMArena Coding1254—
BigCodeBench Complete57.2%—
ALE-Bench—326.4
HumanEval+79.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4: —, Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
METR Time Horizons36.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads

GPT-4: 17.8 (#289), Qwen3.6 Flash: 29.0 (#96)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
Chess Puzzles4%20%
Mystery Game Puzzles12%18%
DTBench62.7%77.1%
LMCA17.1%31%
Epoch Capabilities Index125.89143.26
SimpleBench—35.2%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
BIG-Bench Hard75.1%—
ForecastBench57.8—
HellaSwag95.3%—
WinoGrande87.5%—

Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads

GPT-4: 10.8 (#309), Qwen3.6 Flash: 39.0 (#117)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%84.4%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—22.5%
LMArena Math1269—
MATH Level 523%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—10.3%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%
GSM8K92%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads

GPT-4: 18.4 (#282), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.1 (#100)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
GPQA Diamond35.7%83.3%
SimpleQA Verified—15.9%
LMArena Expert1211—
MMLU86.4%—
TriviaQA84.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-4: 40.6 (#215), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Non-English1246—
LMArena Chinese1242—
LMArena French1283—
LMArena German1251—
LMArena Japanese1209—
LMArena Korean1184—
LMArena Russian1251—
LMArena Spanish1261—

Instruction Following Not comparable

GPT-4: 65.3 (#222), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1241—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-4: 37.7 (#212), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1244—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-4: 34.9 (#268), Qwen3.6 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.6 Flash
LMArena Text1263—
LMArena Creative Writing1244—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing752—
LMArena Multi-Turn1257—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 better than Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 or Qwen3.6 Flash?

Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.19 per million input tokens and $1.13 per million output tokens; GPT-4 lists at $30 and $60.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-4 and Qwen3.6 Flash share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper