Model comparison
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT-5.4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 1227× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 4 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 4 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.4 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.7 Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.4 Pro leads 70.7 to 28.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 82.5% for GPT-5.4 Pro and 19.3% for Qwen3.7 Flash.
- Qwen3.7 Flash is cheaper at $0.03 / $0.13 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $180 for GPT-5.4 Pro.
- GPT-5.4 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 58.9 | 39.9 |
| Released | 2026-03-05 | 2026-07-15 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 131K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $30 | $0.03 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $180 | $0.13 |
| Results tracked | 16 | 7 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.4 Pro: 43.2 (#90), Qwen3.7 Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 57.4% | — |
Reasoning GPT-5.4 Pro leads
GPT-5.4 Pro: 70.7 (#13), Qwen3.7 Flash: 28.2 (#108)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 58.6% | 23% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 158.93 | 144.64 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 83.3% | — |
| SimpleBench | 74.1% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 43.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 94.5% | — |
| CritPt | 30% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 23.8% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 15% |
Math GPT-5.4 Pro leads
GPT-5.4 Pro: 72.4 (#22), Qwen3.7 Flash: 38.3 (#140)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 82.5% | 19.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 58.5% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 86.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 50% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 37.5% | — |
Knowledge GPT-5.4 Pro leads
GPT-5.4 Pro: 68.3 (#7), Qwen3.7 Flash: 48.9 (#75)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 94.6% | 82.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 44.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 46.3% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 8.3% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.4 Pro better than Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT-5.4 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 58.9 to 39.9 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.7 Flash costs 1227× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.4 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 Pro 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 Pro lists at $30 and $180.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.4 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3.7 Flash share?
4 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 Pro has 16 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.7 Flash has 7.