Model comparison
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)
Head-to-head evidence from 3 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); Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) #53 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) share 3 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 9 results are unique to GPT-5.4 Pro; 18 to Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 3
- GPT-5.4 Pro only
- 9
- Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only
- 18
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick GPT-5.4 Pro if you want the stronger benchmark profile. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 3 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 59.72. 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 mathematics, where it averages 46.9 against 18.4. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), 37.500% to 4.167%. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) 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 gives you the larger context window at 1.05M, compared with 256K for Qwen 3.6 Max (preview).
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 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | GPT-5.4 Pro46.9 | Margin← 28.5 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)18.4 |
| Agentic | GPT-5.4 Pro89.3 | Margin← 23.9 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)65.4 |
| Knowledge | GPT-5.4 Pro58.7 | Margin→ 15.2 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)73.9 |
| Coding | GPT-5.4 ProNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)51.0 |
| Reasoning | GPT-5.4 Pro83.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
| Multimodal | GPT-5.4 Pro94.0 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)
MathA 37.500%B 4.167%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 33.3FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): GPT-5.4 Pro scored 37.500%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 4.167%. GPT-5.4 Pro wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 50.000%B 23.103%Winner: GPT-5.4 ProΔ 26.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): GPT-5.4 Pro scored 50.000%; Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) scored 23.103%. 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 | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro$30 input / $180 output | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | GPT-5.4 Pro74 tok/s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | GPT-5.4 Pro151.79 s | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | GPT-5.4 Pro1.05M | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)256K | GPT-5.4 Pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
AgenticGPT-5.4 Pro wins5 benchmarks
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen 3.6 Max (preview) wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | 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 |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 73.9% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 40.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 88.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 28.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | 10.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 37.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 44.2% | Not comparable |
MathGPT-5.4 Pro wins4 benchmarks
Multimodal1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMU-ProSource | 94% | — | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | GPT-5.4 Pro | Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 76.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.4 Pro is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 60.89 to 59.72. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4), where the scores are 37.500% and 4.167%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 73.9 versus 58.7. GPT-5.4 Pro stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for math, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 46.9 versus 18.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 Pro or Qwen 3.6 Max (preview)?
GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 89.3 versus 65.4. Qwen 3.6 Max (preview) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
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.