Noometry

Model comparison

GPT-5.3 Chat vs Qwen3.5 27B

GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.8 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

GPT-5.3 Chat OpenAI

42.8

Rank #109 Confirmed

Qwen3.5 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #127 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 2 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where GPT-5.3 Chat leads 63.1 to 59.3.
  • Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
  • Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 128K.
  • Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

GPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index42.841.9
Released2026-03-032026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window128K262K
Max output16K66K
Input $ / M tokens$1.75$0.30
Output $ / M tokens$14$2.40
Results tracked1828

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

Category by category

Coding GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 41.4 (#124), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Coding14081427
LMArena WebDev—1358
WeirdML—39.5%
ALE-Bench—349.45

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: —, Qwen3.5 27B: —

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
Vending-Bench 2—201.98

Reasoning Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 28.5 (#102), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Hard Prompts13991414
NYT Connections (extended)—47.9%
Thematic Generalization—45.5%
DTBench—82.4%
LMCA—34%

Math Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#142), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Math13891429
MathArena Final-Answer Competitions—56.7%

Knowledge Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.8 (#140), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Expert13971428
Vectara Hallucination Rate—12.1%

Multimodal Not comparable

GPT-5.3 Chat: —, Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Vision—1241

Multilingual Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.3 (#124), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Non-English13821390
LMArena Chinese14321478
LMArena French13971410
LMArena German13841393
LMArena Japanese13521345
LMArena Korean13461358
LMArena Russian14001390
LMArena Spanish13711407

Instruction Following Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 72.8 (#129), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Instruction Following13781393

Long Context Too close to call

GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#120), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Longer Query13961413

Writing & Preference GPT-5.3 Chat leads

GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.1 (#68), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

BenchmarkGPT-5.3 ChatQwen3.5 27B
LMArena Text13891409
LMArena Creative Writing13551362
LMArena Multi-Turn14121410
EQ-Bench Creative Writing1690—

Frequently asked questions

Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than Qwen3.5 27B?

GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (42.8 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3 Chat or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.

Is GPT-5.3 Chat or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

GPT-5.3 Chat scores higher on coding benchmarks: 41.4 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3.5 27B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.

Related comparisons

Go deeper