Model comparison
GPT-5.3 Chat vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 88× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 38.8.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $1.75 / $14 for GPT-5.3 Chat.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 128K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 42.8 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-03 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Max output | 16K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.75 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $14 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 18 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 41.4 (#124), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
GPT-5.3 Chat: 28.5 (#102), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 23% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1399 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 144.64 |
Math Too close to call
GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.2 (#142), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| LMArena Math | 1389 | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
GPT-5.3 Chat: 38.8 (#140), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 82.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1397 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 50.3 (#124), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1382 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1432 | — |
| LMArena French | 1397 | — |
| LMArena German | 1384 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1352 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1400 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1371 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 72.8 (#129), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1378 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 42.6 (#120), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1396 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.3 Chat: 63.1 (#68), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.3 Chat | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1389 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1355 | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1690 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1412 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.3 Chat better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.3 Chat is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.8 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 88× 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.03 per million input tokens and $0.13 per million output tokens; GPT-5.3 Chat lists at $1.75 and $14.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.3 Chat and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.3 Chat has 18 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.