Compare AI models
| 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. | — | 235B |
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. | — | 128k |
| API pricingUSD per 1M tokens · lower wins · base tier | ||
Input priceWhat you pay for everything you send the model — your question, plus any documents or earlier conversation you include with it. | $1.75 | $0.70 |
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. | $14.00 | $2.80 |
Cached input priceA reduced rate for text you send over and over. If every request starts with the same instructions or the same document, the provider keeps a copy ready and charges less to read it again. | $0.175 | — |
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. | $1.75Azure | $0.0482StreamLake |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $14.00Azure | $0.1931StreamLake |
| Benchmarks | ||
BullshitBench v2Nonsense detection — Given a confidently-worded but nonsensical prompt, does the AI spot that it makes no sense and push back — instead of playing along and inventing an answer? The score is how often it clearly called out the nonsense. Higher is better. | 24% | 6% |
SWE-Bench VerifiedCoding — Real coding tasks pulled from open-source projects — the AI has to find and fix actual bugs. A human-checked version of the original SWE-Bench. Higher is better. | 85% | — |
Next.js EvalsNext.js coding — Vercel's open eval of how well AI coding agents build and migrate real Next.js apps — measured as the share of tasks the agent completes successfully. Higher is better. | 68% | — |
OSWorld-VerifiedAgentic computer use — Can the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 64.7% | — |
threejsevalCommunity preference (Three.js) — Every model gets the same prompt — "the Eiffel Tower", "a glass fishbowl", "a robot arm picking toys into a box" — and builds a 3D scene in Three.js. Real people then see two scenes side by side, names hidden, and vote for the one they prefer. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on threejseval.com, averaged across all the prompts. It measures whether the scene looks and moves right to a human eye, not whether the code passes a test. Higher is better. | 1163 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Feb 5 2026 | Apr 29 2025 |
| Access | Closed | Open Weight |
| Model details | View model | View model |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.3-CodexvsClaude Haiku 5.5Qwen3vsClaude Haiku 5.5GPT-5.3-CodexvsGemini 4 ArgonQwen3vsGemini 4 ArgonGPT-5.3-CodexvsMuse Spark 1.3Qwen3vsMuse Spark 1.3GPT-5.3-CodexvsGrok 4.7Qwen3vsGrok 4.7GPT-5.3-CodexvsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashQwen3vsDeepSeek-V4.1-FlashGPT-5.3-CodexvsMistral Large 4Qwen3vsMistral Large 4Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.3-Codex leads Qwen3 on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (BullshitBench v2). Qwen3 is cheaper on both input and output: $0.70 vs $1.75 per million input tokens, and $2.80 vs $14.00 per million output tokens. Figures are base-tier rates. Qwen3 shipped 282 days before GPT-5.3-Codex, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
GPT-5.3-Codex is closed, while Qwen3 is open weight.
On BullshitBench v2, GPT-5.3-Codex leads at 24% vs Qwen3 at 6%.