Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.3 Codex
89
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
72
Pick GPT-5.3 Codex if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Agentic
+6.1 difference
Coding
+9.0 difference
GPT-5.3 Codex
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$2.5 / $10
N/A
79 t/s
N/A
88.26s
N/A
400K
256K
Pick GPT-5.3 Codex if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
GPT-5.3 Codex is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 89 to 72. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.3 Codex's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 63.1 against 54.1. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 77.3% to 65.4%.
GPT-5.3 Codex gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
GPT-5.3 Codex is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 89 to 72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 77.3% and 65.4%.
GPT-5.3 Codex has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 63.1 versus 54.1. Inside this category, SWE-bench Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
GPT-5.3 Codex has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.5 versus 65.4. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
For engineers, researchers, and the plain curious — a weekly brief on new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.