Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

GPT-5.4 nano vs Qwen3.7 Plus

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 23 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

66.79/100
Margin
0.4pts
winning →
67.22/100
0 category wins4 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 nano #25 (Supported); Qwen3.7 Plus #21 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 nano and Qwen3.7 Plus share 23 comparable benchmark results. 4 of 8 categories are comparable. 6 results are unique to GPT-5.4 nano; 46 to Qwen3.7 Plus.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
23
GPT-5.4 nano only
6
Qwen3.7 Plus only
46
Comparable categories
4 / 8

Pick Qwen3.7 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. GPT-5.4 nano only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.

Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 23 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 4 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.

Why this result

Qwen3.7 Plus has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 67.22 versus 66.79. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.7 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 92.9 against 21. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is OSWorld-Verified, 39% to 73.3%.

Qwen3.7 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, compared with 400K for GPT-5.4 nano.

Category breakdown

Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.

Category scores and score margins for GPT-5.4 nano and Qwen3.7 Plus
CategoryGPT-5.4 nanoΔQwen3.7 Plus
MathGPT-5.4 nano21.0Margin→ 71.9Qwen3.7 Plus92.9
AgenticGPT-5.4 nano42.9Margin→ 28.8Qwen3.7 Plus71.7
KnowledgeGPT-5.4 nano43.8Margin→ 16.3Qwen3.7 Plus60.1
MultimodalGPT-5.4 nano66.1Margin→ 15.4Qwen3.7 Plus81.5
CodingGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus75.6
ReasoningGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus91.7
MultilingualGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus85.4
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.4 nanoNot measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.7 Plus84.5

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · GPT-5.4 nanoB · Qwen3.7 Plus

  1. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 39%B 73.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 34.3
    OSWorld-Verified: GPT-5.4 nano scored 39%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 73.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  2. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 46.3%B 70.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 24
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 nano scored 46.3%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 70.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  3. MMMU-Pro

    Multimodal
    Source ↗
    A 66.1%B 79%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 12.9
    MMMU-Pro: GPT-5.4 nano scored 66.1%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 79%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 82.8%B 90.3%
    Winner: Qwen3.7 PlusΔ 7.5
    GPQA: GPT-5.4 nano scored 82.8%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 90.3%. Qwen3.7 Plus wins this benchmark.

  5. HLE

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 37.7%B 34.7%
    Winner: GPT-5.4 nanoΔ 3
    HLE: GPT-5.4 nano scored 37.7%; Qwen3.7 Plus scored 34.7%. GPT-5.4 nano wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

MetricGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.4 nano$0.2 input / $1.25 outputQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.4 nano191 tok/sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.4 nano3.64 sQwen3.7 PlusNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.4 nano400KQwen3.7 Plus1MQwen3.7 Plus lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 46.3%70.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 39%73.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MCP AtlasSource 56.1%73.2%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
ToolathlonSource 35.5%—Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 76%93%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA Agentic IndexSource 27.5%20.8%GPT-5.4 nano leads
APEX-Agents-AASource 24.9%22.4%GPT-5.4 nano leads
GDPval-AASource 30.0%21.8%GPT-5.4 nano leads
GDPval-AASource 1100936GPT-5.4 nano leads
QwenClawBenchSource —61.8%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1536Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —62.7%Not comparable
BFCL v4Source —72.9%Not comparable
VITA-BenchSource —45.6%Not comparable
DeepPlanningSource —62.3%Not comparable
AndroidWorldSource —81.0%Not comparable
OSWorld 2.0Source —2.8%Not comparable
Coding
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
Vibe Code BenchSource 26.10%—Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 56.1%55.9%GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA-SciCodeSource 46.9%45.5%GPT-5.4 nano leads
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —70.3%Not comparable
SWE-bench VerifiedSource —77.7%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource —57.6%Not comparable
SWE MultilingualSource —75.8%Not comparable
NL2RepoSource —41.1%Not comparable
SciCodeSource —51.3%Not comparable
LiveCodeBenchSource —89.6%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-LCRSource 66.0%65.0%GPT-5.4 nano leads
CritPtSource 9.3%9.1%GPT-5.4 nano leads
MRCRv2Source —91.7%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
GPQASource 82.8%90.3%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
HLESource 37.7%34.7%GPT-5.4 nano leads
HLE w/o toolsSource 24.3%—Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 38.2%39.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 81.7%90.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-HLESource 26.5%33.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -29.5%2.4%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 25.4%22.2%GPT-5.4 nano leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 73.6%25.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
GPQA-DSource —90.3%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource —88.5%Not comparable
MMLU-ReduxSource —94.5%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource —71.4%Not comparable
MMMLUSource —89.0%Not comparable
MathQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 25.860%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%—Not comparable
HMMT Feb 2026Source —92.9%Not comparable
IMOAnswerBenchSource —86.0%Not comparable
ApexSource —22.7%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMLU-ProXSource —85.4%Not comparable
NOVA-63Source —58.8%Not comparable
INCLUDESource —83.0%Not comparable
MAXIFESource —88.8%Not comparable
PolyMathSource —84.0%Not comparable
MultimodalQwen3.7 Plus wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
MMMU-ProSource 66.1%79%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 69.5%—Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 65.4%80.5%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
MathVisionSource —90.3%Not comparable
CharXivSource —85.9%Not comparable
ERQASource —69.8%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source —71.0%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource —79.0%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource —81.7%Not comparable
MMSearch-PlusSource —41.4%Not comparable
RealWorldQASource —86.9%Not comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5Source —91.4%Not comparable
OCRBench V2Source —70.7%Not comparable
ODINW13Source —51.1%Not comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)Source —88.0%Not comparable
VideoMMMUSource —85.4%Not comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)Source —87.4%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource —1288Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.4 nanoQwen3.7 PlusResult
AA-IFBenchSource 75.9%78.0%Qwen3.7 Plus leads
IFEvalSource —94.6%Not comparable
IFBenchSource —79.1%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (5)

Which is better, GPT-5.4 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 67.22 to 66.79. The biggest single separator in this matchup is OSWorld-Verified, where the scores are 39% and 73.3%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 60.1 versus 43.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for math, GPT-5.4 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 92.9 versus 21. GPT-5.4 nano stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 71.7 versus 42.9. Inside this category, GDPval-AA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for multimodal and grounded tasks, GPT-5.4 nano or Qwen3.7 Plus?

Qwen3.7 Plus has the edge for multimodal and grounded tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.5 versus 66.1. Inside this category, AA-MMMU-Pro is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 23, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.