# GPT-4 vs Qwen1.5-110B

> Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-4-vs-qwen1-5-110b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-4 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen1.5-110B leads 31.1 to 10.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is BigCodeBench Complete: 57.2% for GPT-4 and 44.4% for Qwen1.5-110B.
- Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 28.9 | 33.6 |
| Rank | 308 | 231 |
| Context | 8K | — |
| Input $/M | $30 | — |
| Output $/M | $60 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-4: 31.2 (#277)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| BigCodeBench Instruct | 46% | 35% |
| LMArena Coding | 1254 | 1184 |
| BigCodeBench Complete | 57.2% | 44.4% |
| WeirdML | 12.4% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 79.3% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-4: —
- Qwen1.5-110B: —

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| METR Time Horizons | 36.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-4: 17.3 (#285)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1241 | 1168 |
| ForecastBench | 57.8 | 57.7 |
| Chess Puzzles | 4% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 12% | — |
| DTBench | 62.7% | — |
| LMCA | 17.1% | — |
| BIG-Bench Hard | 75.1% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 125.88 | — |
| HellaSwag | 95.3% | — |
| WinoGrande | 87.5% | — |

## Math

- GPT-4: 10.1 (#304)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1269 | 1185 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 1.1% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 23% | — |
| GSM8K | 92% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-4: 18.4 (#277)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1211 | 1144 |
| GPQA Diamond | 35.7% | — |
| MMLU | 86.4% | — |
| TriviaQA | 84.8% | — |

## Multilingual

- GPT-4: 40.8 (#210)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1246 | 1142 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1242 | 1206 |
| LMArena French | 1282 | 1150 |
| LMArena German | 1251 | 1123 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1209 | 1074 |
| LMArena Korean | 1184 | 1044 |
| LMArena Russian | 1251 | 1118 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1261 | 1141 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-4: 65.5 (#217)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1241 | 1158 |

## Long Context

- GPT-4: 37.7 (#207)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1244 | 1157 |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-4: 35.0 (#263)
- Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)

| Benchmark | GPT-4 | Qwen1.5-110B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1263 | 1175 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1244 | 1148 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1257 | 1160 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 752 | — |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-4 better than Qwen1.5-110B?

Qwen1.5-110B is the stronger model overall, scoring 33.6 to 28.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GPT-4 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

Qwen1.5-110B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 32.4 versus 31.2 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-4 and Qwen1.5-110B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-4 has 38 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.