Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-4 vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 5 shared benchmarks.

GPT-4 OpenAI

29.1

Rank #316 Confirmed

Qwen3.7 Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

39.9

Rank #156 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 5 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 3 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 18.4.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 1.1% for GPT-4 and 86.7% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $60 for GPT-4.
  • Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 8K.

Side by side

GPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index29.139.9
Released2023-03-142026-07-15
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window8K1M
Max output8K131K
Input $ / M tokens$30$0.03
Output $ / M tokens$60$0.13
Results tracked387

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

GPT-4: 31.6 (#283), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
WeirdML12.4%—
BigCodeBench Instruct46%—
LMArena Coding1254—
BigCodeBench Complete57.2%—
HumanEval+79.3%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-4: —, Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
METR Time Horizons36.1%—

Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4: 17.8 (#289), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
Chess Puzzles4%23%
Mystery Game Puzzles12%15%
Epoch Capabilities Index125.89144.64
NYT Connections (extended)—43.8%
LMArena Hard Prompts1241—
DTBench62.7%—
LMCA17.1%—
BIG-Bench Hard75.1%—
ForecastBench57.8—
HellaSwag95.3%—
WinoGrande87.5%—

Math Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4: 10.8 (#309), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-20251.1%86.7%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—19.3%
LMArena Math1269—
MATH Level 523%—
GSM8K92%—

Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads

GPT-4: 18.4 (#282), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
GPQA Diamond35.7%82.3%
LMArena Expert1211—
MMLU86.4%—
TriviaQA84.8%—

Multilingual Not comparable

GPT-4: 40.6 (#215), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 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), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Instruction Following1241—

Long Context Not comparable

GPT-4: 37.7 (#212), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Longer Query1244—

Writing & Preference Not comparable

GPT-4: 34.9 (#268), Qwen3.7 Flash: —

BenchmarkGPT-4Qwen3.7 Flash
LMArena Text1263—
LMArena Creative Writing1244—
EQ-Bench Creative Writing752—
LMArena Multi-Turn1257—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-4 better than Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 39.9 to 29.1 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, GPT-4 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 lists at $30 and $60.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 8K.

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

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

Related comparisons

Go deeper