GPT Audio vs Qwen3.7 Flash
Updated October 21, 2026. 0 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $10.00
- Coding
- No data
- Overall
- No data
- Output $/M
- $0.13
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
- Shared results
- 0
- GPT Audio only
- 0
- Qwen3.7 Flash only
- 6
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
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
Long documents
Listed context window
Qwen3.7 Flash
Qwen3.7 Flash takes 1M tokens against 128K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash
GPT Audio $0.0075, Qwen3.7 Flash $0.0001 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT Audio not benchmarked, Qwen3.7 Flash not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- No category has a result for both models.
- Widest single gap
- No benchmark has a result for both models.
- Output price
- GPT Audio $10.00 against Qwen3.7 Flash $0.13 per million output tokens, 76.9x apart.
- Context window
- GPT Audio 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.
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALE-Bench | Not measured | 420.1 | Only 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 index1 board, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Not measured | 144.1 | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 1 board here | |||
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run) | Not measured | 82.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Mystery game puzzles | Not measured | 15.0% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME | Not measured | 86.7% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3 | Not measured | 19.3% | Only Qwen3.7 Flash measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here | |||
KnowledgeNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 17 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 46 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash | 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
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.7 Flash costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
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.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT Audio | Qwen3.7 Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | January 19, 2026 | July 27, 2026 |
| Context window | 128K | 1M |
| Input $/Mtok | $2.50 | $0.03 |
| Output $/Mtok | $10.00 | $0.13 |
| 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 Audio better than Qwen3.7 Flash for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Compare them on price, context and the boards below.
Which is cheaper, GPT Audio or Qwen3.7 Flash?
GPT Audio 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 Audio or Qwen3.7 Flash?
Qwen3.7 Flash, with 1M tokens against 128K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT Audio vs Qwen3.7 Flash comparison based on?
0 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT Audio'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.