# GPT-5.4 vs QwQ-32B

> GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/gpt-5-4-vs-qwq-32b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 23

## Summary

- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. GPT-5.4 scores higher in 8 categories and QwQ-32B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where GPT-5.4 leads 61.7 to 22.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Chess Puzzles: 44% for GPT-5.4 and 5% for QwQ-32B.
- QwQ-32B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 59.5 | 39.4 |
| Rank | 14 | 153 |
| Context | 1.05M | — |
| Input $/M | $2.50 | — |
| Output $/M | $15 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- GPT-5.4: 52.8 (#28)
- QwQ-32B: 34.9 (#220)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1497 | 1333 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 76.9% | — |
| DeepSWE | 51.8% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | — | 20.9% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1465 | — |
| SciCode | 56.6% | — |
| GSO | 31.4% | — |
| WeirdML | 77.7% | — |
| BigCodeBench Instruct | — | 44.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 72.2% |
| MirrorCode | 15.6% | — |
| BigCodeBench Complete | — | 54.4% |
| ALE-Bench | 1,607 | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.85 | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- GPT-5.4: 46.5 (#12)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | 81.8% | — |
| APEX-Agents | 52.4% | — |
| τ²-bench Banking | 39.4% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 35.1% | — |
| PostTrainBench | 19% | — |
| GBAEval | 45.1% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1197 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 74.3% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | 6,144 | — |

## Reasoning

- GPT-5.4: 61.7 (#17)
- QwQ-32B: 22.9 (#171)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 44% | 5% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1485 | 1326 |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 156.92 | 137.6 |
| ForecastBench | 59.5 | 58.3 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 74% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 63.8% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | 91.3% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 93.7% | — |
| CritPt | 23.4% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 16% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | 80% | — |
| EBR-Bench | 25.4% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 83.5% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 37% | — |
| DTBench | 94.4% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65% |
| LMCA | 52% | — |
| LiveBench | — | 72% |

## Math

- GPT-5.4: 73.3 (#14)
- QwQ-32B: 36.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 97.8% | 59.2% |
| LMArena Math | 1488 | 1359 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 78.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 49% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | 83.1% | — |
| ProofBench | 56% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 77.8% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 47.6% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 27.1% | — |

## Knowledge

- GPT-5.4: 65.3 (#13)
- QwQ-32B: 37.2 (#150)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 93.3% | 65.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1507 | 1323 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 36.2% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 45.1% | — |
| Confabulations | — | 15.6% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 7% | — |

## Multimodal

- GPT-5.4: 43.8 (#19)
- QwQ-32B: —

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1302 | — |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | 27.1% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | 37.5% | — |
| LMArena Document | 1471 | — |

## Multilingual

- GPT-5.4: 56.4 (#22)
- QwQ-32B: 45.0 (#171)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1465 | 1306 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1520 | 1378 |
| LMArena French | 1493 | 1337 |
| LMArena German | 1472 | 1313 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1484 | 1263 |
| LMArena Korean | 1449 | 1278 |
| LMArena Russian | 1480 | 1297 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1453 | 1353 |

## Instruction Following

- GPT-5.4: 77.3 (#25)
- QwQ-32B: 72.8 (#131)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1469 | 1297 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.8% |

## Long Context

- GPT-5.4: 50.3 (#8)
- QwQ-32B: 49.0 (#11)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1474 | 1308 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| CL-bench | 27.9% | — |
| CL-bench Life | 21.7% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- GPT-5.4: 72.1 (#18)
- QwQ-32B: 50.9 (#175)

| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 | QwQ-32B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1469 | 1329 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1439 | 1288 |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1840 | 1257 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1482 | 1314 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 80.2% |
| EQ-Bench 4 | 1272 | — |
| LiveBench Language | — | 51.4% |

## FAQ

### Is GPT-5.4 better than QwQ-32B?

GPT-5.4 is the stronger model overall, scoring 59.5 to 39.4 on the Noometry Index.

### Is GPT-5.4 or QwQ-32B better for coding?

GPT-5.4 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 52.8 versus 34.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do GPT-5.4 and QwQ-32B share?

23 benchmarks have published results for both models. GPT-5.4 has 68 scored results on Noometry and QwQ-32B has 36.