Model comparison
GPT-5.4 nano vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 8.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 nano's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.4 nano scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.7 Flash in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.7 Flash leads 48.9 to 41.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 44.9% for GPT-5.4 nano and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $0.20 / $1.25 for GPT-5.4 nano.
- Qwen3.7 Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 400K.
Side by side
| GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.9 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-17 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 400K | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $0.20 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $1.25 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 40 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 43.6 (#84), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| SciCode | 46.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 49.2% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1405 | — |
| ALE-Bench | 1,005 | — |
Reasoning Qwen3.7 Flash leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 23.7 (#173), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 30% | 23% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 9% | 15% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.81 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 5.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 39.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 51.5% | — |
| CritPt | 9.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1381 | — |
| DTBench | 80.3% | — |
| LMCA | 36.9% | — |
| ForecastBench | 57.3 | — |
Math GPT-5.4 nano leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 40.9 (#88), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 44.9% | 19.3% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 87.8% | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 12.2% | — |
| ProofBench | 5% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1406 | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 25.9% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 6.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.7 Flash leads
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.9 (#103), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 78.5% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 3.1% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1396 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 36.7 (#78), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1196 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 48.6 (#140), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1392 | — |
| LMArena French | 1396 | — |
| LMArena German | 1367 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1343 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1320 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1363 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1371 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 71.9 (#144), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1362 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 41.6 (#137), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1366 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.4 nano: 55.7 (#142), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 nano | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1372 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1314 | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1382 | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.4 nano better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 nano is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 8.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 nano's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 nano 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-5.4 nano lists at $0.20 and $1.25.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.7 Flash does, with 1M tokens against 400K.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 nano and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 nano has 40 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.