GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.7
Full profiles: GPT-5.4 Pro (OpenAI) and Qwen3.7 (Alibaba): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 10 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3.7 are neck and neck on quality (63.1 vs 60.3 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±5.6 margin), and Qwen3.7 is 18× cheaper at $3.75 vs $67.50 per 1M tokens blended. Choose GPT-5.4 Pro for knowledge (74 vs 61) and reasoning (73 vs 66) and fast first answers (6.7 s vs 14.1 s); choose Qwen3.7 for instruction following (78 vs 63), where it also streams 3×+ faster.
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- GPT-5.4 Pro scores 63.1 on the BenchLeader Index and Qwen3.7 scores 60.3 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- GPT-5.4 Pro costs $67.50 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Qwen3.7 costs $3.75 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Qwen3.7 streams 3×+ faster than GPT-5.4 Pro (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 2 benchmarks both models have, GPT-5.4 Pro leads 2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
GPT-5.4 Pro benchmarks 
Qwen3.7 benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Pro | 73 vs 66 category score; SimpleBench 74.1% vs 70.4% | Medium |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 Pro | 74 vs 61 category score | High |
| Following instructions | Qwen3.7 | 78 vs 63 category score | High |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only Qwen3.7 has an Arena rating (56 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | Qwen3.7 | $3.75 vs $67.50 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.180 vs $2.52 | – |
| Fastest first answer | GPT-5.4 Pro | 6.7 s (GPT-5.4 Pro) vs 14.1 s (Qwen3.7 (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3.7 (max) are neck and neck on quality (63.1 vs 60.3, within the ±5.6 margin).
- GPT-5.4 Pro is stronger in knowledge, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3.7 (max) is stronger in instruction following, agents & tools, coding, human preference, long context, maths.
- Qwen3.7 (max) is 18× cheaper ($3.75 vs $67.50 per 1M blended).
- Qwen3.7 (max) streams 28.8× faster (201 vs 7 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Alibaba |
| Released | 4 Mar 2026 | 19 May 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,050,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $30.00 / $180.00 / – | $2.50 / $7.50 / $0.500 |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 72.6 | 66.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro |
| Coding | – | 59.1 | not comparable |
| Agents & tools | – | 49.3 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 58.1 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 73.6 | 61.2 | GPT-5.4 Pro |
| Instruction following | 62.8 | 78.0 | Qwen3.7 |
| Human preference | – | 55.6 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | 69.8 | – | not comparable |
| Long context | – | 64.3 | not comparable |
Where sources disagree
Across the 2 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.4 Pro leads 2, Qwen3.7 leads 0.
| Overall index | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.1 | 60.3 | neck and neck |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $67.50 | $3.75 |
| Input / output per 1M | $30.00 / $180.00 | $2.50 / $7.50 |
| Cached input per 1M | – | $0.500 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.066 | $0.0033 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.468 | $0.035 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.450 | $0.026 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $2.52 | $0.180 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.096 | $0.0065 |
| Output speed | 7 tok/s | 201 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 6.7 s | 14.1 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 16.6 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. GPT-5.4 Pro scores 63.1 and takes 7 s to its first answer token; GPT-5.4 Pro (xhigh) scores 59.9 in 7 s. Qwen3.7 (max) scores 60.3 and takes 14 s to its first answer token. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
86 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 63.1 | 60.3 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | 62.8 | 78.0 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 73.6 | 61.2 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 69.8 | – |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 72.6 | 66.2 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 49.3 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | – | 59.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 55.6 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | – | 64.3 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 58.1 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $67.50 | $3.75 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 7 tok/s | 201 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 6.7 s | 14.1 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,050,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 94.6%† | 90.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | Scale AI / CAIS | 44.3% | – |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | 74.1% | 70.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1495 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 83.3% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 92.3% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 40.5% |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 90.2% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | 94.5%† | – |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | 83.3%† | – |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | 30.0%† | 13.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 59.0%† | 26.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 32.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 44.0% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 92.3% |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 77.3% |
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 49.5% |
| WeirdML | WeirdML | 57.4%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1523 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1515 |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 74.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | – | 87.1% |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 68.8% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 13.1% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 47.7% |
Show all 86 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.7 (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 1189.4 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 1.5% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 74.5% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 63.6% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | -6.6 |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 43.6% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 50.8% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 94.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 61.0% |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 11.8% |
| ITBench SRE (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 42.5% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 18.8% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 47.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 1.7% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | – | 25.5% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | – | 15.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 59.2% |
| GBAEval | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 0.4% |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 23.0% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 8.6% |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym | Artificial Analysis | – | 45.0% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 917 |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 82.5%† | 64.6% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.5%† | 34.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.6% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 26.0% |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 85.3% |
| MathArena Apex | MathArena | 69.8%† | – |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1482 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 46.3%† | 55.8% |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 71.8% |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 89.3% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 84.9% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 63.7% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 75.3% |
| MultiNRC | Scale AI SEAL | 62.3% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 57.0% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 38.8% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 79.4% |
| DrugDiscoveryBench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 29.3%† |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 9.5% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 79.7% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 74.0% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 80.5% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | 69.2% | – |
| TutorBench | Scale AI SEAL | 56.6% | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1465 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1474 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1100 |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1437 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1482 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1490 |
| Multimodal | |||
| VISTA | Scale AI SEAL | 53.9% | – |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 79.0% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 14.4% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 159.6 | 154.1 |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 73.1% |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 29.5 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 293.8 |
| Safety & honesty | |||
| FORTRESS | Scale AI SEAL | 14.8% | – |
| MASK | Scale AI SEAL | 91.7% | – |
Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- Qwen3.7 (max): BenchLeader Index 60.8 → 60.3.
- Qwen3.7 (max): 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- GPT-5.4 Pro: BenchLeader Index 63.6 → 63.1.
- Qwen3.7 (max): cached input price moved from $0.33/M to $0.50/M (52% up).
- Qwen3.7 (max): cost per task moved from $1.15/M to $0.93/M (19% down).
- Qwen3.7 (max): 1 new result (AA-Briefcase v1.1); 1 score revision; cached input price moved from $0.50/M to $0.33/M (34% down).
- Qwen3.7 (max): cached input price moved from $0.33/M to $0.50/M (52% up).
- Qwen3.7 (max): 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1); cached input price moved from $0.50/M to $0.33/M (34% down).
- Qwen3.7 (max): cached input price moved from $0.33/M to $0.50/M (52% up).
- GPT-5.4 Pro: 1 score revision.
Related comparisons
- GPT-5.4 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-5.4 Pro vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-5.4 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- Qwen3.7 vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Qwen3.7 vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Qwen3.7 vs GPT-6 Astra
- Qwen3.7 vs GPT-6.1 Sol
- GPT-5.3-Codex vs Qwen3.7
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.7: questions
- Is GPT-5.4 Pro better than Qwen3.7?
- GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3.7 (max) are neck and neck on quality (63.1 vs 60.3, within the ±5.6 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 29 Oct 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.7: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Qwen3.7 is cheaper today: $3.75 against $67.50 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Which is faster, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen3.7?
- Qwen3.7 streams 3×+ faster (201 vs 7 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-5.4 Pro 1,050,000, Qwen3.7 1,000,000.
- Which has lower latency?
- GPT-5.4 Pro answers first: 6.7 s against 14.1 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
More questions (2)
- Do independent benchmarks agree on GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.7?
- Across the 2 benchmarks both have, GPT-5.4 Pro leads 2, Qwen3.7 leads 0.
- When was Qwen3.7 released?
- Qwen3.7 was released on 19 May 2026.