GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus costs 12.8x less per output token than GPT-4o (2024-11-20) ($0.78 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 3 benchmarks have a result for both.
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Qwen-Plus: which to pick
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Pick GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) or OTIS Mock AIME, where it leads.
- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-4o (2024-11-20) only
- 21
- Qwen-Plus only
- 25
- Like-for-like categories
- 2 of 9
Only benchmarks that tested both models count toward a pick; a result only one model has is shown but not compared.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
No call
Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has a AA Intelligence Index result, 8.4.
Directional only
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has a GPQA Diamond result, 53.8%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has a AIME result, 11.9%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) has a MMLU Pro result, 72.6%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen-Plus
Qwen-Plus takes 1M tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen-Plus
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) $0.0075, Qwen-Plus $0.0006 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o (2024-11-20) not benchmarked, Qwen-Plus not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Math, 13.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
- Widest single gap
- MATH level 5: GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 49.8% against Qwen-Plus 65.3%, 15.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- GPT-4o (2024-11-20) $10.00 against Qwen-Plus $0.78 per million output tokens, 12.8x apart.
- Context window
- GPT-4o (2024-11-20) takes 128K tokens, Qwen-Plus 1M.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Bars | Qwen-Plus | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 0 | 1 | ||
| Math | 0 | 2 | ||
| All shared boards | 0 | 3 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index7 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aider polyglot | 18.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 43.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| GSO-Bench | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| WeirdML | 25.1% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| Cybench | 12.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LMArena Text: coding | Not measured | 1328 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: software and IT | Not measured | 1343 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 32 boards here | |||
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 8.4 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| TheAgentCompany | 8.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 40 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 53.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 62.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | 47.9% | 48.1% | Qwen-Plus |
| VPCT | 40.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts | Not measured | 1317 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: expert | Not measured | 1328 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: hard prompts in English | Not measured | 1333 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 15 boards here | |||
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 11.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 74.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 90.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| OTIS Mock AIME | 6.3% | 17.8% | Qwen-Plus |
| MATH level 5 | 49.8% | 65.3% | Qwen-Plus |
| LMArena Text: math | Not measured | 1326 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: mathematical work | Not measured | 1332 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here | |||
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 72.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LegalBench (Vals AI) | 82.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| CaseLaw (Vals AI) | 59.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 45.9% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 74.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 57.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| GeoBench | 71.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LMArena Text: science | Not measured | 1352 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare | Not measured | 1350 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: legal and government | Not measured | 1349 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: business and finance | Not measured | 1303 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index15 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| DTBench | Not measured | 81.1% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMCA | Not measured | 24.0% | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Creative writing (Lech Mazur) | 81.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured |
| LMArena Text | Not measured | 1326 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: instruction following | Not measured | 1303 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: creative writing | Not measured | 1292 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: English | Not measured | 1339 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: non-English | Not measured | 1310 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Chinese | Not measured | 1347 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Japanese | Not measured | 1251 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: Russian | Not measured | 1323 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: multi-turn | Not measured | 1336 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: longer queries | Not measured | 1324 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: writing and language | Not measured | 1296 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| LMArena Text: entertainment and media | Not measured | 1270 | Only Qwen-Plus measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 31 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
Qwen-Plus costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o (2024-11-20) | Qwen-Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | November 20, 2024 | February 1, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $0.26 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.78 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o (2024-11-20) better than Qwen-Plus for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Pick GPT-4o (2024-11-20) for work measured by GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) or OTIS Mock AIME, where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Qwen-Plus?
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen-Plus costs $0.26 and $0.78. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Qwen-Plus?
Qwen-Plus, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Qwen-Plus comparison based on?
3 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-4o (2024-11-20)'s coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Qwen-Plus's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.