GPT-4vsQwen3.8-Flash-Next
GPT-4 | Qwen3.8-Flash-Next | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
ParametersA rough measure of how big the model is. More parameters usually means more capable and more expensive to run, though it is a poor guide on its own — a smaller, newer model often beats a larger, older one. | — | 125B |
Context windowHow much text the model can hold in mind at once — your question, any documents you attach, the conversation so far, and its own reply. Go past it and the earliest part falls out of view. | 8k | 262k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $30.00 | — |
Output priceWhat you pay for the text the model writes back. It is normally the dearer half: producing an answer costs more than reading one. | $60.00 | — |
Cheapest inputLowest input rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. The cheapest endpoint may run a quantised build or a shorter context — see "Available from" on the model page. | $30.00Azure | — |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $60.00Azure | — |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
SWE-Bench ProAgentic coding — Can the AI fix real bugs in real software? It's handed actual problems from open-source projects and has to write code that genuinely solves them. Higher is better. | — | 62.5% |
SWE-Bench MultilingualMultilingual coding — Like SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 81% |
DeepSWE 1.1Agentic coding — Artificial Analysis' independent test of deep, agentic software-engineering work — the AI has to plan and carry out substantial coding tasks end to end. (Version 1.1 of the test.) Higher is better. | — | 58.7% |
NL2Repo-BenchRepo-level code generation — Tests whether the AI can turn a natural-language requirement into working code across an entire repository, not just produce a single function or patch. Higher is better. | — | 48.1% |
LiveCodeBenchCompetitive coding — Coding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 91.9% |
HumanEvalFunction synthesis — 164 small Python problems: the AI is given a function's description and has to write the working function. This was the coding benchmark of the GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 era, before the field moved to fixing real bugs in real repositories. Higher is better. | 67% | — |
JobBenchProfessional tool use — Tests the AI on professional workplace tasks that require using real work tools — the kind of multi-step jobs an office worker handles. Higher is better. | — | 55.7% |
CoWorkBenchLong-horizon office work — Tests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 73.9% |
Toolathlon-VerifiedPersonal tool use — Tests how well the AI uses everyday personal tools and apps to get things done — a human-checked version of Toolathlon. Higher is better. | — | 73.5% |
Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects, written so you can't just look up the answer. “No tools” means the AI answers on its own. Higher is better. | — | 35.9% |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 91.7% |
IFBenchInstruction following — Tests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 81.3% |
MMLUGeneral knowledge — A 57-subject multiple-choice exam — history, law, medicine, maths — that was the standard measure of how much a model knows from 2020 until roughly 2024, when frontier scores crowded into the high 80s and labs moved on to harder tests. The scores here were published years apart under different testing setups, so read them as a historical record rather than a like-for-like ranking. Higher is better. | 86.4% | — |
GSM8KGrade-school math — Grade-school maths word problems that take a few steps of arithmetic to work through. It separated the models of 2022 and 2023 sharply, then saturated. One caveat on the historical numbers: OpenAI included part of the GSM8K training set in GPT-4's pre-training mix, so GPT-4's score is not a clean few-shot result. Higher is better. | 92% | — |
OSWorld 2.0Agentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Version 2.0 is a harder, refreshed task set. Higher is better. | — | 19.4% |
Agent's Last Exam · pass@1Agentic computer use — A hard set of desktop and operating-system tasks an AI agent has to finish by looking at the screen and working the machine itself. The score is the share it passes outright — partial credit does not count. Higher is better. | — | 24.3% |
Agent's Last Exam · scoreAgentic computer use — The graded score on the same desktop and operating-system tasks in Agent's Last Exam, giving partial credit for progress beyond the strict pass-or-fail result. Higher is better. | — | 51.2% |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 84.6% |
LVBenchVideo understanding — Can the AI follow a very long video — up to an hour — and answer questions that need details from far apart in it? Higher is better. | — | 76.6% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 14 2023 | Aug 26 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Other comparisons
GPT-4vsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsClaude Opus 5GPT-4vsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-4vsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMuse GlimmerGPT-4vsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsGrok 4.6GPT-4vsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-4vsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-Flash-NextvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
GPT-4 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. Only GPT-4 has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $60.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. GPT-4 shipped 1261 days before Qwen3.8-Flash-Next, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 8k (GPT-4) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-Flash-Next). GPT-4 is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-4 and Qwen3.8-Flash-Next don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
GPT-4 was released by OpenAI on Mar 14 2023.
Qwen3.8-Flash-Next was released by Qwen on Aug 26 2026.
Only GPT-4 has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $60.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Flash-Next. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.
GPT-4 has a 8k context window; Qwen3.8-Flash-Next has 262k.
GPT-4 is a proprietary model released by OpenAI. Qwen3.8-Flash-Next is an open weight model released by Qwen.