Head-to-head comparison across 2benchmark categories. Overall scores shown here use BenchLM's provisional ranking lane.
GPT-5.4 nano
62
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
72
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 400K context window.
Agentic
+22.5 difference
Knowledge
+20.7 difference
GPT-5.4 nano
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
$0.2 / $1.25
N/A
191 t/s
N/A
3.64s
N/A
400K
256K
Pick Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 400K context window.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 72 to 62. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)'s sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 65.4 against 42.9. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 46.3% to 65.4%.
GPT-5.4 nano gives you the larger context window at 400K, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 72 to 62. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 46.3% and 65.4%.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 53.2. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 65.4 versus 42.9. 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.