Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.5-Flash

GPT-5.4 Nano leads Qwen3.5-Flash on coding, 44.8 to 41.1 on the Vibe Coding Index, and Qwen3.5-Flash costs 4.8x less per output token ($0.26 vs $1.25 per million). Updated October 22, 2026; 52 benchmarks have a result for both.

Replace GPT-5.4 Nano Replace Qwen3.5-Flash
GPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI
Coding
44.8
Overall
45.7
Output $/M
$1.25
10
Qwen3.5-FlashQwen
Coding
41.1
Overall
50.1
Output $/M
$0.26
42
vs boards won of 52 shared

GPT-5.4 Nano or Qwen3.5-Flash: which to pick

Pick GPT-5.4 Nano for coding: it scores 44.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash.

Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 4.8x cheaper ($0.26 vs $1.25 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 400K tokens).

Model AGPT-5.4 NanoOpenAI44.8/1002 independent benchmarks$0.14 per solved taskModel BQwen3.5-FlashQwen41.1/1002 independent benchmarks$0.40 per solved task
Shared results
52
GPT-5.4 Nano only
33
Qwen3.5-Flash only
3
Like-for-like categories
6 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-5.4 Nano 44.8 from 2 benchmarks, Qwen3.5-Flash 41.1 from 2 benchmarks.
Widest category
Reasoning, 8.6 points apart on average over 8 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
Chess puzzles: GPT-5.4 Nano 45.0% against Qwen3.5-Flash 14.0%, 31.0 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
GPT-5.4 Nano $1.25 against Qwen3.5-Flash $0.26 per million output tokens, 4.8x apart.
Context window
GPT-5.4 Nano takes 400K tokens, Qwen3.5-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-5.4 NanoBarsQwen3.5-FlashTies
Coding32
Intelligence10
Reasoning17
Math23
Knowledge111
General219
All shared boards1042
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index32
Coding benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
LMArena WebDevNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
AA Coding Index56.1Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LiveCodeBench (Vals AI)84.0%83.3%GPT-5.4 Nano
SWE-bench Verified (Vals AI)69.8%64.4%GPT-5.4 Nano
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)26.1%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Code migration (Vals AI)14.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals AI)41.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
SciCode47.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)42.4%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
WeirdML49.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ALE-Bench1004.5265.9GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text: coding14041412Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: software and IT14021416Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1229Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1291Only Qwen3.5-Flash measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Intelligence Index20.7Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Epoch Capabilities Index146.0143.5GPT-5.4 Nano
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AA Agentic Index16.0Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)38.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)5.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)6.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)44.8%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
τ²-Bench Telecom76.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 36 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index17
Reasoning benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
GPQA Diamond77.5%82.8%Qwen3.5-Flash
MMMU Pro (Vals AI)73.6%81.9%Qwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)81.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)28.3%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)78.5%82.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
ARC-AGI51.5%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ARC-AGI-25.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Chess puzzles45.0%14.0%GPT-5.4 Nano
Mystery game puzzles9.0%20.0%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts13811403Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: expert13961407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English13871409Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision: diagrams1210Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: homework1225Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Kagi LLM Benchmark39.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index23
Math benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
AIME88.8%92.5%Qwen3.5-Flash
OTIS Mock AIME87.8%84.4%GPT-5.4 Nano
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 344.9%18.2%GPT-5.4 Nano
FrontierMath, tier 412.2%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
ProofBench5.0%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: math14051407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: mathematical work14091413Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index111
Knowledge benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
MMLU Pro77.2%84.1%Qwen3.5-Flash
LegalBench (Vals AI)77.9%84.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
CaseLaw (Vals AI)51.9%56.0%Qwen3.5-Flash
CorpFin (Vals AI)61.2%63.6%Qwen3.5-Flash
TaxEval (Vals AI)67.4%72.2%Qwen3.5-Flash
MortgageTax (Vals AI)59.1%67.4%Qwen3.5-Flash
MedCode (Vals AI)41.0%33.0%GPT-5.4 Nano
SimpleQA Verified11.7%20.3%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: science13741415Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare13691407Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: legal and government13681398Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: business and finance13661394Qwen3.5-Flash
Neither model has a result on the other 8 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index219
General benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-FlashLeader
SAGE (Vals AI)38.1%42.5%Qwen3.5-Flash
MedScribe (Vals AI)77.1%70.6%GPT-5.4 Nano
Vals Multimodal Index47.6%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
IFBench75.9%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)76.7%Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
DTBench80.3%82.9%Qwen3.5-Flash
LMCA36.9%29.1%GPT-5.4 Nano
LMArena Text13721397Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: instruction following13621374Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: creative writing13151343Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision1196Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Text: English13811404Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: non-English13591385Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Chinese13911445Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: German13681390Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Japanese13431369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Korean13211344Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: French13951413Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Spanish13711400Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Russian13631380Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: Polish13661376Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: multi-turn13821393Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: longer queries13651392Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: writing and language13381369Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text: entertainment and media13251347Qwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Vision: English1202Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: Chinese1232Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: reading text1204Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: humor1161Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: recognizing things1141Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
LMArena Vision: creative writing1159Not measuredOnly GPT-5.4 Nano measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-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-5.4 Nano$0.0008Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0002Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.4 Nano$0.014Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.0040Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-Flash costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.4 Nano$0.052Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-Flash$0.016Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-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-5.4 Nano and Qwen3.5-Flash
SpecificationOpenAI GPT-5.4 NanoQwen3.5-Flash
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedMarch 17, 2026February 25, 2026
Context window400K1M
Input $/Mtok$0.20$0.065
Output $/Mtok$1.25$0.26
Coding index44.841.1
Independent measurements behind it22
Cost per solved task$0.14$0.40
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is GPT-5.4 Nano better than Qwen3.5-Flash for coding?

Pick GPT-5.4 Nano for coding: it scores 44.8 on the Vibe Coding Index against 41.1 for Qwen3.5-Flash. Pick Qwen3.5-Flash for output tokens 4.8x cheaper ($0.26 vs $1.25 per million) and a larger context window (1M against 400K tokens).

Which is cheaper, GPT-5.4 Nano or Qwen3.5-Flash?

GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.20 per million input tokens and $1.25 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-Flash costs $0.065 and $0.26. Per solved SWE-bench Verified task, GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.14 and Qwen3.5-Flash $0.40.

Which has the bigger context window, GPT-5.4 Nano or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash, with 1M tokens against 400K.

How many benchmarks is the GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.5-Flash comparison based on?

52 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 22, 2026. GPT-5.4 Nano's coding index rests on 2 independent benchmarks and Qwen3.5-Flash's on 2. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next

Embed this comparison on your site

Free under CC BY 4.0, while the source link stays visible. Preview the frame · Terms and other embeds

<iframe src="https://llmbenchmark.ai/embed/compare/gpt-5-4-nano-vs-qwen3-5-flash-02-23" title="GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.5-Flash, LLMBenchmark.ai" width="100%" height="360" style="border:0;max-width:100%" loading="lazy"></iframe>
<p style="font:13px/1.4 sans-serif;margin:6px 0 0">Source: <a href="https://llmbenchmark.ai/compare/gpt-5-4-nano-vs-qwen3-5-flash-02-23">LLMBenchmark.ai, GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3.5-Flash</a></p>