GPT-5.4 minivsQwen3.8-27B
GPT-5.4 mini | Qwen3.8-27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 27B |
Context window | 400k | 262k |
| Benchmarks | ||
Nonsense detection BullshitBench v2Given 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. | 32% | — |
Agentic coding SWE-Bench ProCan 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. | — | 61.7% |
Agentic coding DeepSWE 1.1Artificial 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. | — | 42.2% |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · with skillsSupabase's own open benchmark: a coding agent is dropped into a real Supabase project and asked to do real work — set up a schema, fix a broken security policy, debug an Edge Function — and every run is checked against a live Supabase stack. This is the headline number, where the agent has Supabase's own skills loaded, as most people building on Supabase would. The score is the share of scenarios it got right. Higher is better. | 81.8% | — |
Supabase coding Supabase Evals · no skillsThe same Supabase scenarios, but with none of Supabase's skills loaded — so it measures what the model already knows about building on Supabase, rather than how well it follows Supabase's supplied instructions. Higher is better. | 63.6% | — |
Repo-level code generation NL2Repo-BenchTests 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. | — | 42.3% |
Software engineering QwenSWEBenchQwen's in-house coding benchmark for evaluating a model's ability to complete software-engineering work. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Competitive coding LiveCodeBenchCoding problems published so recently the AI can't have seen them in training — a contamination-free test of raw programming skill. Higher is better. | — | 90.3% |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.1Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 73% |
Professional tool use JobBenchTests 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. | — | 33.4% |
Long-horizon office work CoWorkBenchTests long-running office tasks across fields including computer science, finance, law, medicine, and other productivity work. Higher is better. | — | 70.7% |
Browser agent BU BenchCan the AI drive a real web browser to finish tasks — clicking, filling forms, and navigating sites the way a person would? Run by Browser Use on their BU Bench task set. Higher is better. | 36% | — |
Multidisciplinary reasoning Humanity's Last Exam · no toolsHumanity'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. | — | 30.8% |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | — | 89.2% |
Instruction following IFBenchTests whether the AI can follow detailed instructions and satisfy multiple constraints at once. Higher is better. | — | 79.5% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · pass@1A 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. | — | 20.4% |
Agentic computer use Agent's Last Exam · scoreThe 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. | — | 42.9% |
Community preference (code) Arena Elo (Code)Like the text arena, but people vote on which AI writes better code. The votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai. Higher is better. | 1398 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 17 2026 | Aug 14 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: GPT-5.4 mini or Qwen3.8-27B?
GPT-5.4 mini and Qwen3.8-27B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks, so there's no direct head-to-head comparison. GPT-5.4 mini shipped 150 days before Qwen3.8-27B, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Context windows are 400k (GPT-5.4 mini) vs 262k (Qwen3.8-27B). GPT-5.4 mini is proprietary, while Qwen3.8-27B is open weight.
Direct benchmark comparisons are unavailable — GPT-5.4 mini and Qwen3.8-27B don't publish scores on any of the same benchmarks.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4 mini was released by OpenAI on Mar 17 2026.
Qwen3.8-27B was released by Qwen on Aug 14 2026.
GPT-5.4 mini has a 400k context window; Qwen3.8-27B has 262k.
GPT-5.4 mini is a proprietary model released by OpenAI. Qwen3.8-27B is an open weight model released by Qwen.
Other comparisons
GPT-5.4 minivsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-27BvsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.4 minivsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-27BvsGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-5.4 minivsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-27BvsMuse GlimmerGPT-5.4 minivsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-27BvsGrok 4.6GPT-5.4 minivsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-27BvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-5.4 minivsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-27BvsMistral Medium 3.5