Model comparison
GPT-5.3 Chat vs Qwen3.6 Flash
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 Flash leads 42.2 to 38.2.
- Qwen3.6 Flash is cheaper at $0.19 / $1.13 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
- Qwen3.6 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.1 | 38.4 |
| Released | 2026-03-03 | 2026-04-27 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 16K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.75 | $0.19 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $14 | $1.13 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 13 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 40.8 (#124), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 326.4 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Flash leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 27.3 (#105), Qwen3.6 Flash: 28.4 (#90)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | — | 35.2% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| DTBench | — | 77.1% |
| LMCA | — | 31% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 143.26 |
Math Qwen3.6 Flash leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 35.4 (#146), Qwen3.6 Flash: 38.0 (#88)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 22.5% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1389 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 10.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Flash leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#137), Qwen3.6 Flash: 42.2 (#90)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 83.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 15.9% |
| LMArena Expert | 1397 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.5 (#119), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1383 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1433 | — |
| LMArena French | 1398 | — |
| LMArena German | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1351 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1347 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1371 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 73.0 (#124), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1378 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#115), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1396 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.3 (#65), Qwen3.6 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.6 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1356 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1690 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1413 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than Qwen3.6 Flash?
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 38.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 Flash costs 11× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.3 Chat's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.3 Chat 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-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3.6 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Flash has 13.