Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Qwen3.7 Flash

Qwen3.7 Flash costs 76.9x less per output token than GPT-4o (2024-11-20) ($0.13 vs $10.00 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 2 benchmarks have a result for both.

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)OpenAI
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$10.00
0
Qwen3.7 FlashQwen
Coding
No data
Overall
No data
Output $/M
$0.13
2
vs boards won of 2 shared

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Qwen3.7 Flash: 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
2
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) only
22
Qwen3.7 Flash only
4
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.

At a glance

Coding index
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
Widest category
Math, 80.4 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
OTIS Mock AIME: GPT-4o (2024-11-20) 6.3% against Qwen3.7 Flash 86.7%, 80.4 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) $10.00 against Qwen3.7 Flash $0.13 per million output tokens, 76.9x apart.
Context window
GPT-4o (2024-11-20) takes 128K tokens, Qwen3.7 Flash 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.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryGPT-4o (2024-11-20)BarsQwen3.7 FlashTies
Reasoning01
Math01
All shared boards02
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index6 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
Aider polyglot18.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)43.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
GSO-Bench0.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
WeirdML25.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Cybench12.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
ALE-BenchNot measured420.1Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 37 boards here
IntelligenceDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index8.4Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured144.1Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
TheAgentCompany8.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 41 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond53.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)62.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)47.9%82.3%Qwen3.7 Flash
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured15.0%Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured
VPCT40.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 18 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Math benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
AIME11.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MATH 500 (Vals AI)74.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MGSM (Vals AI)90.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
OTIS Mock AIME6.3%86.7%Qwen3.7 Flash
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured19.3%Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured
MATH level 549.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index7 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
MMLU Pro72.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
LegalBench (Vals AI)82.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
CaseLaw (Vals AI)59.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
CorpFin (Vals AI)45.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
TaxEval (Vals AI)74.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
MortgageTax (Vals AI)57.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
GeoBench71.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
General benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)81.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-4o (2024-11-20) measured
Neither model has a result on the other 47 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
BenchmarkGPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 FlashLeader
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

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.0075Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Flash$0.0001Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.155Fits in one request
Qwen3.7 Flash$0.0019Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-4o (2024-11-20)$0.600Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.7 Flash$0.0073Fits in one request

Qwen3.7 Flash 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.

Specifications of GPT-4o (2024-11-20) and Qwen3.7 Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-4o (2024-11-20)Qwen3.7 Flash
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedNovember 20, 2024July 27, 2026
Context window128K1M
Input $/Mtok$2.50$0.03
Output $/Mtok$10.00$0.13
Coding indexNot benchmarkedNot benchmarked
Independent measurements behind it00
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-4o (2024-11-20) better than Qwen3.7 Flash 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 Qwen3.7 Flash?

GPT-4o (2024-11-20) costs $2.50 per million input tokens and $10.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.7 Flash costs $0.03 and $0.13. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o (2024-11-20) or Qwen3.7 Flash?

Qwen3.7 Flash, with 1M tokens against 128K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o (2024-11-20) vs Qwen3.7 Flash comparison based on?

2 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 Qwen3.7 Flash's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next