GPT-5.4vsQwen3.5
GPT-5.4 | Qwen3.5 | |
|---|---|---|
| Specifications | ||
Parameters | — | 397B |
Context window | — | 1M |
| 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. | 48% | — |
Coding SWE-Bench VerifiedReal 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. | — | 76.4% |
Multilingual coding SWE-Bench MultilingualLike SWE-Bench, but the coding problems span many programming languages, not just one. Tests how broadly the AI can code. Higher is better. | — | 69.3% |
Next.js coding Next.js EvalsVercel'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. | 83% | — |
Agentic terminal coding Terminal-Bench 2.0Can the AI work in a command-line terminal — running commands and finishing technical setup tasks the way a developer would? (Version 2.0 of the test.) Higher is better. | 75.1%Best | 52.5% |
Software engineering Expert-SWE (Internal)OpenAI's private set of expert-level software-engineering problems. Higher is better. | 68.5% | — |
General tool use ToolathlonTests how well the AI uses everyday real-world tools and apps to get things done. Higher is better. | 54.6% | — |
Web browsing BrowseCompCan the AI browse the web and track down hard-to-find answers? Higher is better. | 82.7%Best | 69% |
Cybersecurity CyberGymTests the AI on cybersecurity challenges — finding and exploiting software weaknesses inside a safe sandbox. Higher is better. | 79% | — |
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. | — | 28.7% |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 1–3Very hard, research-level math problems. Tiers 1–3 are the (still extremely difficult) lower tiers. Higher is better. | 47.6% | — |
Advanced math FrontierMath · Tier 4Very hard, research-level math problems. Tier 4 is the hardest — close to what professional research mathematicians tackle. Higher is better. | 27.1% | — |
Science GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions in biology, physics, and chemistry — hard enough that subject-matter PhDs score around 65%. Higher is better. | 92.8%Best | 88.4% |
Agentic computer use OSWorld-VerifiedCan the AI actually operate a computer — clicking, typing, and using real apps — to finish tasks on its own? Higher is better. | 75%Best | 62.2% |
Knowledge work GDPval (win/tie rate)How often the AI's work matches or beats a human expert's on real knowledge-work tasks. Higher is better. | 83% | — |
Chart reasoning CharXiv ReasoningCan the AI read and reason about complex charts and figures, not just text? Higher is better. | — | 80.8% |
Multimodal reasoning MMMU-ProA tougher version of MMMU — college-level questions that mix images, diagrams, and text together. Higher is better. | — | 79% |
Multimodal MMMUTests the AI on understanding images and text together across many college subjects. Higher is better. | — | 85% |
Community preference Arena Elo (Text)Real people chat with two anonymous AIs side by side and vote for the answer they prefer. Votes become a chess-style Elo rating on arena.ai — it measures which AI people actually like, not test scores. Higher is better. | 1476 | — |
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. | 1462 | — |
| Overview | ||
| Company | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Release date | Mar 5 2026 | Feb 16 2026 |
| Access | Proprietary | Open Weight |
Which is better: GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.5?
GPT-5.4 leads Qwen3.5 on 4 of the 4 benchmarks they both report (Terminal-Bench 2.0, BrowseComp, GPQA Diamond, OSWorld-Verified). Qwen3.5 shipped 17 days before GPT-5.4, so benchmark comparisons should account for the intervening progress.
GPT-5.4 is proprietary, while Qwen3.5 is open weight.
On Terminal-Bench 2.0, GPT-5.4 leads at 75.1% vs Qwen3.5 at 52.5%. On BrowseComp, GPT-5.4 leads at 82.7% vs Qwen3.5 at 69%. On GPQA Diamond, GPT-5.4 leads at 92.8% vs Qwen3.5 at 88.4%. On OSWorld-Verified, GPT-5.4 leads at 75% vs Qwen3.5 at 62.2%.
Frequently asked questions
GPT-5.4 was released by OpenAI on Mar 5 2026.
Qwen3.5 was released by Qwen on Feb 16 2026.
GPT-5.4 leads on Terminal-Bench 2.0 — GPT-5.4 75.1% vs Qwen3.5 52.5%.
GPT-5.4 leads on GPQA Diamond — GPT-5.4 92.8% vs Qwen3.5 88.4%.
GPT-5.4 is a proprietary model released by OpenAI. Qwen3.5 is an open weight model released by Qwen.