Model comparison
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen3.5-27B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 2 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 Pro #44 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3.5-27B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 10 results are unique to GPT-5.4 Pro; 26 to Qwen3.5-27B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 10
- Qwen3.5-27B only
- 26
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen3.5-27B only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 2 shared benchmark results across 2 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
GPT-5.4 Pro has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 60.89 versus 60.7. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
GPT-5.4 Pro's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 89.3 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is BrowseComp, 89.3% to 61%. Qwen3.5-27B does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
GPT-5.4 Pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $30.00 input / $180.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. GPT-5.4 Pro gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 262K for Qwen3.5-27B.
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 | GPT-5.4 Pro | Δ | Qwen3.5-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 | Margin← 37.3 | Qwen3.5-27B52.0 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 | Margin→ 24.0 | Qwen3.5-27B82.7 |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 | Margin← 22.7 | Qwen3.5-27B60.6 |
| Coding | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B64.9 |
| Math | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Multilingual | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B82.2 |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27BNot measured |
| Inst. Following | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-27B95.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
BrowseComp
AgenticA 89.3%B 61%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 28.3BrowseComp: GPT-5.4 Pro scored 89.3%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 61%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Qwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | Qwen3.5-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | Qwen3.5-27B262K | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Coding3 benchmarks
ReasoningGPT-5.4 Pro wins4 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| HLESource | 58.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScienceSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierScience ResearchSource | 36.7% | — | Not comparable |
| HLE w/o toolsSource | 42.7% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.1% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 65.6% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 85.5% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 85.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 22.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -42.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 21.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 79.7% | Not comparable |
Math4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen3.5-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 82.2% | Not comparable |
Multimodal6 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
GPT-5.4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.89 to 60.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is BrowseComp, where the scores are 89.3% and 61%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 versus 58.7. GPT-5.4 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for reasoning, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for reasoning in this comparison, averaging 83.3 versus 60.6. Inside this category, CritPt is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen3.5-27B?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 52. Inside this category, BrowseComp is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.