GPT-5.4-ProvsQwen3.8-Max
GPT-5.4-Pro | Qwen3.8-Max | |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | — | 2.4T |
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. | — | 1M |
| 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. | $180.00 | — |
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 | $2.00Alibaba |
Cheapest outputLowest output rate across third-party providers, excluding the lab itself. May come from a different provider than the cheapest input. | $180.00Azure | $6.00Alibaba |
| Benchmarks | ||
Humanity's Last Exam · with toolsMultidisciplinary reasoning — Humanity's Last Exam — extremely hard expert questions across many subjects. “With tools” means the AI is allowed to search the web or run code while answering. Higher is better. | 58.7% | 43.6% |
| BenchmarksPublished by one model only | ||
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. | — | 94% |
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. | — | 67.7% |
PaperBenchResearch reproduction — reproducing the results of an ML research paper end to end | — | 93% |
Terminal-Bench 2.1Agentic terminal coding — Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? Higher is better. | — | 86.6% |
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. | — | 53.4% |
BrowseCompWeb browsing — Can the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 89.3% | — |
ARC-AGI-2Abstract reasoning — Puzzle-style tests of abstract reasoning and pattern-finding — the kind of thing people find easy but AIs often struggle with. Higher is better. | 83.3% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 50% | — |
FrontierMath · Tier 4Advanced math — Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 38% | — |
GPQA DiamondScience — Graduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 94.4% | — |
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. | — | 86.1% |
GDPval (win/tie rate)Knowledge work — How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 82% | — |
CharXiv ReasoningChart reasoning — Can the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 88.4% |
BabyVisionVisual reasoning — Tests core visual reasoning — seeing and understanding images the way even young children can, which AIs often find surprisingly hard. Higher is better. | — | 82% |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 5 2026 | Aug 3 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Proprietary |
Other comparisons
GPT-5.4-ProvsClaude Opus 5Qwen3.8-MaxvsClaude Opus 5GPT-5.4-ProvsGemini 3.7 FlashQwen3.8-MaxvsGemini 3.7 FlashGPT-5.4-ProvsMuse GlimmerQwen3.8-MaxvsMuse GlimmerGPT-5.4-ProvsGrok 4.6Qwen3.8-MaxvsGrok 4.6GPT-5.4-ProvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813Qwen3.8-MaxvsDeepSeek-V4-Pro-0813GPT-5.4-ProvsMistral Medium 3.5Qwen3.8-MaxvsMistral Medium 3.5
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4-Pro leads Qwen3.8-Max on 1 of the 1 benchmark they both report (Humanity's Last Exam). Only GPT-5.4-Pro has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $180.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Max. GPT-5.4-Pro shipped 151 days before Qwen3.8-Max, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
Published specifications for these two models are limited — see each model page for the latest details.
On Humanity's Last Exam · with tools, GPT-5.4-Pro leads at 58.7% vs Qwen3.8-Max at 43.6%.
GPT-5.4-Pro was released by OpenAI on Mar 5 2026.
Qwen3.8-Max was released by Qwen on Aug 3 2026.
GPT-5.4-Pro leads on Humanity's Last Exam · with tools — GPT-5.4-Pro 58.7% vs Qwen3.8-Max 43.6%.
Only GPT-5.4-Pro has a verified first-party API price: $30.00 per million input tokens and $180.00 per million output tokens. No pay-as-you-go API rate is tracked for Qwen3.8-Max. Rates are pay-as-you-go API prices verified on August 18, 2026.