Model comparison
GPT-5.5 Pro vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 3 shared benchmark results across 3 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.5 Pro #38 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.5 Pro and Qwen3.5 397B share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to GPT-5.5 Pro; 52 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-5.5 Pro only
- 4
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 52
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.5 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5 397B only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 shared benchmark results across 3 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.5 Pro is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 63.69 to 57.01. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
GPT-5.5 Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 90.1 against 56.5. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is HLE, 57.2% to 28.7%. Qwen3.5 397B does hit back in mathematics, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.5 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 50.0x on output cost alone. GPT-5.5 Pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. GPT-5.5 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | GPT-5.5 Pro | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.5 Pro48.1 | Margin→ 42.5 | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.5 Pro90.1 | Margin← 33.6 | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.5 Pro57.2 | Margin← 0.6 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Coding | GPT-5.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Multilingual | GPT-5.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | GPT-5.5 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
HLE
KnowledgeA 57.2%B 28.7%Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 28.5HLE: GPT-5.5 Pro scored 57.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 28.7%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 90.1%B 62%Winner: GPT-5.5 ProΔ 28.1BrowseComp: GPT-5.5 Pro scored 90.1%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 62%. GPT-5.5 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.5 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.5 ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.5 ProNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.5 Pro1M | Qwen3.5 397B128K | GPT-5.5 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.5 Pro wins18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| BrowseCompSource | 90.1% | 62% | GPT-5.5 Pro leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
KnowledgeGPT-5.5 Pro wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 57.2% | 28.7% | GPT-5.5 Pro leads |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 43.1% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.5 Pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (legacy)Source | 52.4% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 51.000% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 39.600% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
GPT-5.5 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 63.69 to 57.01. The biggest single separator in this matchup is HLE, where the scores are 57.2% and 28.7%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 57.2 versus 56.6. Inside this category, HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 48.1. GPT-5.5 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.5 Pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
GPT-5.5 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 90.1 versus 56.5. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.