Model comparison
GPT-5.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash
GPT-5.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 386× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 9 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 9 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.5 Pro scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 0 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where GPT-5.5 Pro leads 84.0 to 37.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 87.7% for GPT-5.5 Pro and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $30 / $180 for GPT-5.5 Pro.
- GPT-5.5 Pro accepts more context: 1.05M tokens versus 1M.
Side by side
| GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 64.3 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2026-04-23 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 1.05M | 1M |
| Max output | 128K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $30 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $180 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 14 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GPT-5.5 Pro: 73.3 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 64% | 21% |
| DTBench | 96% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 53.9% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 162.07 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 84.6% | — |
| SimpleBench | 76.9% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 96.5% | — |
| CritPt | 30.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
Math GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GPT-5.5 Pro: 84.0 (#10), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 87.7% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 100% | 84.4% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 52.4% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 39.6% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 78% | — |
| LMArena Math | — | 1407 |
Knowledge GPT-5.5 Pro leads
GPT-5.5 Pro: 64.1 (#19), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.9% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1407 |
Multilingual Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1446 |
| LMArena French | — | 1412 |
| LMArena German | — | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1400 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1374 |
Long Context Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1392 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
GPT-5.5 Pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1393 |
Frequently asked questions
Is GPT-5.5 Pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
GPT-5.5 Pro is the stronger model overall, scoring 64.3 to 42.5 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-Flash costs 386× less per token, which makes it the better buy when GPT-5.5 Pro's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; GPT-5.5 Pro lists at $30 and $180.
Which has the bigger context window?
GPT-5.5 Pro does, with 1.05M tokens against 1M.
How many benchmarks do GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
9 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.5 Pro has 14 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.