GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Updated October 17, 2026. Rank says GPT-5.4 is ahead. Price, access, and your workload can each overturn that. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.

Decision reading

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 66.7 versus 53.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. Treat that as a lead, not a settled winner. 15 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Model A

GPT-5.4

OpenAI

66.7/100

Supported · Public rank #30

90% interval 62.2–71.2

Model B

Qwen3.6 Plus

Alibaba

53.78/100

Supported · Public rank #75

90% interval 44.2–63.4

Shared results: 15
GPT-5.4 only: 27
Qwen3.6 Plus only: 34
Like-for-like categories: 3 / 8

Supported: GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.6 PlusHow the comparison works

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

Coding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 has the higher public coding point estimate, 47.7 to 40, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Agentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 has the higher public agentic point estimate, 52.1 to 34.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.
Confidence: limited
Long documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
GPT-5.4
GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window.
Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Cache-heavy agent loop cost
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Not enough matched evidence
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Confidence: listed-rates

Which one for a specific job

Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.

Pick the job you would use them for

The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.

47.7GPT-5.440.0Qwen3.6 Plus

Like-for-like · BenchAlign v5.8

GPT-5.4 has the higher coding point estimate. Conditional score ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.

Open the coding leaderboard Shortlist models for this job

Same basis rules as the category table below

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Math
Normalized gap 40.4
GPT-5.4:78.596%
Qwen3.6 Plus:38.246%
Shared source
HLEKnowledge
Normalized gap 23.3
GPT-5.4:52.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus:28.8%
GPT-5.4 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
Terminal-Bench 2.0Agentic
Normalized gap 13.5
GPT-5.4:75.1%
Qwen3.6 Plus:61.6%
GPT-5.4 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
MMMU-ProMultimodal
Normalized gap 2.4
GPT-5.4:81.2%
Qwen3.6 Plus:78.8%
GPT-5.4 source Qwen3.6 Plus source
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 2.4
GPT-5.4:92.8%
Qwen3.6 Plus:90.4%
GPT-5.4 source Qwen3.6 Plus source

Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Agentic

Like-for-like

GPT-5.4: 52.1; Supported · #44/128
Qwen3.6 Plus: 34.4; Supported · #83/128
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 13 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.4 leads

Coding

Like-for-like

GPT-5.4: 47.7; Supported · #48/150
Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.0; Supported · #66/150
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 9 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.4 leads · intervals overlap

Knowledge

Like-for-like

GPT-5.4: 69.1; Supported · #20/184
Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.4; Supported · #66/184
Basis: BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 8 public rows
Reading: GPT-5.4 leads · intervals overlap

Multimodal

Directional only

GPT-5.4: 73.1; #30/54
Qwen3.6 Plus: 76.1; #21/54
Basis: Provisional lane · 3 vs 2 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Instruction following

Directional only

GPT-5.4: 90.7; #23/148
Qwen3.6 Plus: 85.8; #47/148
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Directional only

Reasoning

Not comparable

GPT-5.4: 64.2; #23/28
Qwen3.6 Plus: 74.7; Unranked · 4 rankable rows
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable

GPT-5.4: Not ranked
Qwen3.6 Plus: 93.8; #4/17
Basis: Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Math

Not comparable

GPT-5.4: 82.0; Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Qwen3.6 Plus: 69.5; #6/12
Basis: Provisional lane · 2 vs 3 weighted rows
Reading: Not comparable

Category scores with the server-provided evidence basis for GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.6 Plus
Category	GPT-5.4	Qwen3.6 Plus	Basis	Reading
Agentic	52.1Supported · #44/128	34.4Supported · #83/128	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 15 vs 13 public rows	GPT-5.4 leads
Coding	47.7Supported · #48/150	40.0Supported · #66/150	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 6 vs 9 public rows	GPT-5.4 leads · intervals overlap
Knowledge	69.1Supported · #20/184	53.4Supported · #66/184	Like-for-likeBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 7 vs 8 public rows	GPT-5.4 leads · intervals overlap
Multimodal	73.1#30/54	76.1#21/54	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 3 vs 2 weighted rows	Directional only
Instruction following	90.7#23/148	85.8#47/148	Directional onlyProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Directional only
Reasoning	64.2#23/28	74.7Unranked · 4 rankable rows	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Multilingual	Not ranked	93.8#4/17	Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows	Not comparable
Math	82.0Unranked · 2 rankable rows	69.5#6/12	Not comparableProvisional lane · 2 vs 3 weighted rows	Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Supported evidence per lane · bars run 0–100Methodology

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

GPT-5.4: $0.01; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

GPT-5.4: $0.17; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

GPT-5.4: $0.25; Fits in one request
Qwen3.6 Plus: API rate not published; Fits in one request; Cached-input rate unavailable

Qwen3.6 Plus has no comparable published API token rate.

Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

SpecificationGPT-5.4Qwen3.6 Plus

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

GPT-5.4

1.05M

OpenAI pricing

Qwen3.6 Plus

API model ID

GPT-5.4

gpt-5.4

OpenAI pricing

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

GPT-5.4

$0.25 per 1M cached input tokens

OpenAI pricing

Qwen3.6 Plus

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Documented outputs

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Provider availability

GPT-5.4

Not sourced

Qwen3.6 Plus

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

GPT-5.4

Reasoning

Qwen3.6 Plus

Reasoning

Weight access

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

License

GPT-5.4

Proprietary

Qwen3.6 Plus

Proprietary

Release date

GPT-5.4

2026-03-05

Qwen3.6 Plus

2026-04-02

If you already use one of these models

Deployment change: The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal: GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 66.7 versus 53.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap.
Workload cost: A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff: GPT-5.4 has the larger documented window (1.05M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.4 has the higher public score estimate, 66.7 versus 53.78, but the 90% score intervals overlap. The higher estimate is not a decisive winner because the uncertainty ranges overlap.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.4 has the higher public coding point estimate, 47.7 to 40, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.4 has the higher public agentic tasks point estimate, 52.1 to 34.4, with Supported evidence for both models. The conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.

Which costs less, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

GPT-5.4 has the larger documented context window: 1.05M, compared with 1M.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence76 rows

Agentic

Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.475.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
CyberGym
GPT-5.479.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
BrowseComp
GPT-5.482.7%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
GPT-5.475%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MCP Atlas
GPT-5.470.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus48.2%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
Toolathlon
GPT-5.454.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus39.8%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
τ²-bench results
GPT-5.498.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Claw-Eval
Shared source
GPT-5.460.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus58.8%
GPT-5.4 leads this result
DeepSearchQA
GPT-5.473.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Gert Labs
Shared source
GPT-5.464.89%
Qwen3.6 Plus50.60%
GPT-5.4 leads this result
ResearchClawBench
Shared source
GPT-5.415.3%
Qwen3.6 Plus18.0%
Qwen3.6 Plus leads this result
JobBench
GPT-5.438.9%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ExploitGym
GPT-5.46.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ApprenticeBench
GPT-5.411%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MazeBench
GPT-5.40%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
QwenClawBench
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.2%
Source
Not directly comparable
τ³-bench results
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus70.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
VITA-Bench
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus44.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
DeepPlanning
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus41.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
WideResearch
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus74.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals)
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus53.2%
Source
Not directly comparable

Coding

LiveCodeBench Pro
GPT-5.487.5%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
GPT-5.457.7%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus56.6%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
React Native Evals
GPT-5.485.3%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
GPT-5.475.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus61.6%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
Vibe Code Bench
Shared source
GPT-5.467.42%
Qwen3.6 Plus25.56%
GPT-5.4 leads this result
PostTrainBench v1.1
GPT-5.419.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.1%
Source
Not directly comparable
NL2Repo
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus37.9%
Source
Not directly comparable
LiveCodeBench (Vals)
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
SWE-bench (Vals)
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus73.4%
Source
Not directly comparable

Reasoning

ARC-AGI-2
GPT-5.474.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-3
GPT-5.40.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ARC-AGI-1
GPT-5.493.67%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AI-Needle
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus68.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
LongBench v2
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus62%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multimodal

MMMU-Pro
GPT-5.481.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus78.8%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
OfficeQA Pro
GPT-5.453.2%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ Python
GPT-5.482.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
CharXiv
GPT-5.482.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus81.5%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
ERQA
GPT-5.465.4%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SimpleVQA
GPT-5.461.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
GPT-5.485.4%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus68.2%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
ZeroBench
GPT-5.441.0%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)
GPT-5.477.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MMMU
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus86.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
MathVision
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
VideoMMMU
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.0%
Source
Not directly comparable
V*
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Knowledge

GPQA
GPT-5.492.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus90.4%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
HLE
GPT-5.452.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus28.8%
Source
GPT-5.4 leads this result
HLE w/o tools
GPT-5.439.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
GPQA-D
GPT-5.492.8%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Hard
GPT-5.440.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)
GPT-5.459.6%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
HealthBench Professional
GPT-5.448.1%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus71.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus88.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.5%
Source
Not directly comparable
C-Eval
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus93.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
GPQA Diamond (Vals)
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.4%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMLU-Pro (Vals)
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.7%
Source
Not directly comparable

Multilingual

MMLU-ProX
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus84.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
NOVA-63
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus57.9%
Source
Not directly comparable

Instruction following

IFEval
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
IFBench
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus75.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

Math

FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
Shared source
GPT-5.478.596%
Qwen3.6 Plus38.246%
GPT-5.4 leads this result
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
GPT-5.449.000%
Source
Qwen3.6 Plus—
Not directly comparable
AIME26
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus95.3%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus96.7%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus94.6%
Source
Not directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus87.8%
Source
Not directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
GPT-5.4—
Qwen3.6 Plus83.8%
Source
Not directly comparable

76 public results · 15 shared

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Watch GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 5,600+ readers.

Last updated October 17, 2026

GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus

Decision reading

Which one for your work

Coding work

Agentic work

Long documents

Chat turn cost

Cache-heavy agent loop cost

Repository review cost

Which one for a specific job

What is actually comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Category results, on a stated basis

Agentic

Coding

Knowledge

Multimodal

Instruction following

Reasoning

Multilingual

Math

What each workload costs

Chat turn

Repository review

Cache-heavy agent loop

Specification differences

Context window

API model ID

Cached-input rate

Documented inputs

Documented outputs

Provider availability

Reasoning profile

Weight access

License

Release date

If you already use one of these models

Questions

Which is better, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which costs less, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Which has the larger context window, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.6 Plus?

Benchmark evidence

Agentic

Coding

Reasoning

Multimodal

Knowledge

Multilingual

Instruction following

Math

Related comparisons

Watch GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.6 Plus