Skip to main content

Model comparison

GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.5-27B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 17 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
74.24/100
Margin
13.5pts
← winning
60.7/100
1 category wins2 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: GPT-5.4 #8 (Supported); Qwen3.5-27B #45 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5-27B share 17 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 35 results are unique to GPT-5.4; 11 to Qwen3.5-27B.

Updated July 23, 2026
Shared results
17
GPT-5.4 only
35
Qwen3.5-27B only
11
Comparable categories
3 / 8

Pick GPT-5.4 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 17 shared benchmark results across 6 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 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 74.24 to 60.7. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

GPT-5.4's sharpest advantage is in agentic, where it averages 77.2 against 52. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is Terminal-Bench 2.0, 75.1% to 41.6%. 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 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.50 input / $15.00 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 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 scores and score margins for GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5-27B
CategoryGPT-5.4ΔQwen3.5-27B
AgenticGPT-5.477.2Margin 25.2Qwen3.5-27B52.0
KnowledgeGPT-5.457.6Margin 25.1Qwen3.5-27B82.7
CodingGPT-5.457.7Margin 7.2Qwen3.5-27B64.9
ReasoningGPT-5.4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B60.6
MathGPT-5.442.5MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27BNot measured
MultilingualGPT-5.4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B82.2
MultimodalGPT-5.473.2MarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27BNot measured
Inst. FollowingGPT-5.4Not measuredMarginNo overlapQwen3.5-27B95.0

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · GPT-5.4B · Qwen3.5-27B
  1. Terminal-Bench 2.0

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 75.1%B 41.6%
    Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 33.5
    Terminal-Bench 2.0: GPT-5.4 scored 75.1%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 41.6%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
  2. BrowseComp

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 82.7%B 61%
    Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 21.7
    BrowseComp: GPT-5.4 scored 82.7%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 61%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
  3. OSWorld-Verified

    Agentic
    Source ↗
    A 75%B 56.2%
    Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 18.8
    OSWorld-Verified: GPT-5.4 scored 75%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 56.2%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.
  4. GPQA

    Knowledge
    Source ↗
    A 92.8%B 85.5%
    Winner: GPT-5.4Δ 7.3
    GPQA: GPT-5.4 scored 92.8%; Qwen3.5-27B scored 85.5%. GPT-5.4 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

MetricGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokensGPT-5.4$2.5 input / $15 outputQwen3.5-27B$0 input / $0 outputQwen3.5-27B has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondGPT-5.474 tok/sQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokenGPT-5.4151.79 sQwen3.5-27BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokensGPT-5.41.05MQwen3.5-27B262KGPT-5.4 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

AgenticGPT-5.4 wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source 75.1%41.6%GPT-5.4 leads
CyberGymSource 79.0%Not comparable
BrowseCompSource 82.7%61%GPT-5.4 leads
OSWorld-VerifiedSource 75%56.2%GPT-5.4 leads
MCP AtlasSource 70.6%Not comparable
ToolathlonSource 54.6%Not comparable
τ²-bench resultsSource 87.1%93.9%Qwen3.5-27B leads
Claw-EvalSource 60.3%Not comparable
DeepSearchQASource 73.6%Not comparable
AA Agentic IndexSource 41.1%Not comparable
APEX-Agents-AASource 33.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 44.7%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource 1395Not comparable
Gert LabsSource 64.89%39.41%GPT-5.4 leads
ResearchClawBenchSource 15.3%Not comparable
JobBenchSource 38.9%Not comparable
ExploitGymSource 6.0%Not comparable
CodingQwen3.5-27B wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
LiveCodeBench ProSource 87.5%Not comparable
SWE-bench ProSource 57.7%Not comparable
React Native EvalsSource 85.3%Not comparable
Vibe Code BenchSource 67.42%Not comparable
AA Coding IndexSource 71.0%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 56.6%39.5%GPT-5.4 leads
SWE-bench VerifiedSource 72.4%Not comparable
SWE-RebenchSource 58.9%Not comparable
Reasoning
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
AA-LCRSource 74.0%67.3%GPT-5.4 leads
CritPtSource 23.4%0.9%GPT-5.4 leads
LongBench v2Source 60.6%Not comparable
KnowledgeQwen3.5-27B wins
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
GPQASource 92.8%85.5%GPT-5.4 leads
HLESource 52.1%Not comparable
HLE w/o toolsSource 39.8%Not comparable
GPQA-DSource 92.8%Not comparable
HealthBench HardSource 40.1%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (Text)Source 59.6%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 51.4%33.8%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 92.0%85.8%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-HLESource 41.6%22.2%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-Omniscience IndexSource 5.7%-42.0%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 50.0%21.0%GPT-5.4 leads
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 88.6%79.7%Qwen3.5-27B leads
HealthBench ProfessionalSource 48.1%Not comparable
MMLU-ProSource 86.1%Not comparable
SuperGPQASource 65.6%Not comparable
Math
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 47.600%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 27.100%Not comparable
Multilingual
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
MMLU-ProXSource 82.2%Not comparable
Multimodal
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
MMMU-ProSource 81.2%Not comparable
OfficeQA ProSource 53.2%Not comparable
MMMU-Pro w/ PythonSource 82.1%Not comparable
CharXivSource 82.8%Not comparable
ERQASource 65.4%Not comparable
SimpleVQASource 61.1%Not comparable
ScreenSpot ProSource 85.4%Not comparable
ZeroBenchSource 41.0%Not comparable
MedXpertQA (MM)Source 77.1%Not comparable
AA-MMMU-ProSource 78.4%75.0%GPT-5.4 leads
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1250Not comparable
MMMUSource 82.3%Not comparable
MMVUSource 73.3%Not comparable
MathVisionSource 86.0%Not comparable
V*Source 93.7%Not comparable
Inst. Following
BenchmarkGPT-5.4Qwen3.5-27BResult
AA-IFBenchSource 73.9%75.6%Qwen3.5-27B leads
IFEvalSource 95%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (4)

Which is better, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GPT-5.4 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 74.24 to 60.7. The biggest single separator in this matchup is Terminal-Bench 2.0, where the scores are 75.1% and 41.6%.

Which is better for knowledge tasks, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 82.7 versus 57.6. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for coding, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.5-27B?

Qwen3.5-27B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 64.9 versus 57.7. Inside this category, AA-SciCode is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Which is better for agentic tasks, GPT-5.4 or Qwen3.5-27B?

GPT-5.4 has the edge for agentic tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 52. Inside this category, Terminal-Bench 2.0 is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

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.