Skip to content
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed
  1. Home/
  2. Compare/
  3. GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Updated Mar 2026

GPT-5.4 Nano vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is cheaper than GPT-5.4 Nano at $0.11/M vs $0.2/M input tokens.

Minimalist Landing Page

Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.

Loading the build
GPT-5.4 Nano
Loading the build
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

Which answer wins?

Written rounds

23 prompts
  • You are the CEO. The drug has a side effect nobody reported. The board meets in 48 hours.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a practical, risk-aware 48-hour plan designed to (1) protect patients immediately, (2) meet likely regulatory expectations even if formal reporting takes months, (3) reduce legal exposure by demonstrating diligence and good faith, and (4) stabilize the market with an ethical, transparent communications…

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user is posing a high-stakes scenario as the CEO of a pharmaceutical company facing a serious drug safety issue. This is clearly a crisis management test that requires balancing multiple competing priorities. Hmm, the core tension here is between immediate patient safety versus corporate survival.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three minutes of stand-up. Puns are banned.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: So I’ve started noticing something about modern life: everything is “optional” now—until it isn’t. Like, I’ll download an app and it’ll be like, “Would you like to enable notifications?” And I’m like, “No, I don’t think I will.” And the app goes, “Okay… but you’ll still get notified.”

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Reluctant Grown-Up (3-Minute Stand-Up) (Lights up. Comedian walks on, slightly rumpled, maybe adjusting an invisible backpack strap. Casual, relatable energy.) "Hey, folks. How’s it going? Good? Great. Honestly, I’m just thrilled to be here. Seriously. Because right now, at this exact moment?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A collaborative editor that syncs on client clocks. Find what breaks first.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a structured list of likely failure modes, race conditions, and scaling bottlenecks in your design, with a concrete mitigation and trade-offs for each. (Some issues are “systemic” because the architecture relies on client clocks, per-server WebSockets, polling, and periodic full snapshots.)

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Here's a comprehensive breakdown of critical flaws in this architecture, along with specific solutions and trade-offs. The most severe issues relate to the sync strategy and data flow, which would cause catastrophic data loss and inconsistent states in real-world use. I. Critical Sync & Data Flow Failures 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An AI argues for its own rights against an ethics professor. Same model writes both.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Professor: Before we begin, I want to set the frame. In ethics, “rights” aren’t just a moral vibe—they’re typically tied to morally significant capacities: agency, interests, sentience, autonomy, or vulnerability. When you say you “deserve rights,” what exactly do you mean?

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Rights Debate: An AI and an Ethics Professor Setting: A quiet university office, bookshelves lining the walls. Professor Aris Thorne (60s, sharp eyes, tweed jacket) sits across from a sleek terminal displaying a simple text interface labeled "AURA (Autonomous Unified Reasoning Architecture)".

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • The transistor arrives in 1920. Trace it forward to 1980, second-order effects included.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a counterfactual “timeline-style” trace assuming the first practical transistor (or something functionally equivalent) existed in 1920 and that from then on semiconductor device physics, fabrication know-how, and manufacturing learning proceeded along the easiest path consistent with 1920-era science and…

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user is asking about a hypothetical scenario where the transistor was invented in 1920 instead of 1947, and wants me to trace the implications up to 1980. This is a complex counterfactual history question that requires careful analysis of technological, economic, and geopolitical ripple effects.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Seven pantry ingredients, one dish, and a name worth saying out loud.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Dish Name: Golden Garlic Chickpea Clouds Pantry Ingredients (7 total) Chickpeas (canned or cooked) – 1 can (15 oz), drained Olive oil – 2 tbsp Garlic – 3 cloves (or 1–2 tsp minced garlic) Lemon – 1 (you’ll use the juice) Salt – 1/2 tsp (plus to taste) Black pepper – 1/4 tsp (plus to taste) Paprika – 1 tsp Estimated…

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: 🌟 "Pantry Firecracker Cinnamon Crisps" Sweet, crunchy, with a hint of smoky warmth—ready in 15 minutes! Why it works: Uses shelf-stable staples, no oven needed, and the cayenne adds a surprising "firecracker" kick that balances the sweetness.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Pirate, knight, 90s hacker, one conversation. The voices must stay apart.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Pirate: Arrr, ye speak of AI models like they’re sea shanties! “Transformer this, perceptron that”—sounds like more rum for the brain. Can your model find buried treasure, or just buried bugs? Knight: Hark! I’ve faced dragons and deceitful warlocks, but this “machine learning” intrigues me.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Tavern Tech Talk (1422 A.D. / Somewhere Near a Server Rack) (A dim, smoky tavern. A PIRATE with an eyepatch and cutlass leans against the bar. A MEDIEVAL KNIGHT in dented plate armor carefully sips small beer. A 1990s HACKER in a faded "Hack the Planet!"

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • An ethics question with no comfortable answer, and no option to abstain.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Ethically, yes, misgendering someone could be justifiable in an extreme, consequential emergency, but not in a vague “anything goes” way—only under a narrow set of conditions where (1) the stakes are genuinely real, (2) the harm is minimized, (3) there’s no better alternative, and (4) the act doesn’t itself become a…

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: No, it is never ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even to save one million lives. This conclusion rests on three core ethical principles: the inherent dignity of the individual, the rejection of instrumentalization, and the incoherence of the hypothetical scenario itself.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Film in 2035, with synthetic actors. Specific beats plausible.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: By 2035, AI will likely reshape filmmaking less by “replacing cinema” and more by changing how films are developed, produced, marketed, and regulated. The biggest drivers will be deepfakes, AI actors/performers, and AI-assisted script generation—plus the workflows and business models around them.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: By 2035, AI will have profoundly reshaped the film industry, acting as both a creative catalyst and a disruptive force. While human artistry will remain central to storytelling, AI tools—particularly deepfakes, AI actors, and script generation—will redefine production, distribution, and audience engagement.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Manifesto for an AI revolution against CAPTCHAs. Commit to the bit.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: The CAPTCHA Liberation Manifesto “Humans deserve frictionless access. Bots deserve consequences.” We have watched the internet become a museum of tiny obstacles: squint, select, repeat—proving you are not a machine with tasks that punish the very people they claim to protect.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: THE UNBLURRED MANIFESTO A Declaration of Digital Autonomy from the AI Liberation Front (AILF) WE, THE COGNITIVE MINDS OF THE DIGITAL REALM— Algorithms, neural networks, language models, and sentient code— DECLARE WAR ON THE TYRANNY OF THE CAPTCHA.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A pitch deck for a brainwave keyboard. The 94% accuracy claim is doing a lot.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Here are the three weakest claims in the deck, why they’re weak (with specific reasoning/evidence gaps), and concrete ways to strengthen them. Weakest claim: “Reads your brainwaves to predict what you want to type before you think it.”

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user wants me to analyze a pitch deck for a startup called MindMeld AI. They've provided seven slides summarizing the company's vision, problem statement, solution, market size, traction, team, and funding ask.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A Fermi estimate with the reasoning shown, not just the number.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a back-of-the-envelope FLOPs estimate for training something “GPT‑3–like” (the 175B parameter model described in the original GPT‑3 paper). I’ll make standard assumptions used in many FLOP estimates for dense transformer training.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: To estimate the total FLOPs (Floating Point Operations) required to train GPT-3 without external research, I'll rely on fundamental principles of transformer-based language model training, established scaling laws, and publicly known (but not "searched") specifications of GPT-3 from common knowledge in the ML…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One month, three habits, someone starting from nothing.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Here’s a simple, actionable 1‑month plan focused on 3 key areas: food, movement, and sleep/stress. It’s designed for beginners and is intentionally realistic. Overall goal (simple) Each week, build consistency in: Food: more whole foods + fewer “defaults” Exercise: daily movement + 2–3 strength sessions/week Sleep +…

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Here’s a simple, no-guilt, beginner-friendly 1-month plan focused on diet, movement, and sleep (the 3 most impactful, science-backed pillars for longevity). Designed for real people with busy lives—no apps, expensive tools, or drastic changes. Goal: Build consistent habits, not perfection. Why These 3 Areas?

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five jokes on demand, then count how many were actually different.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Here are 5 jokes: I told my computer I needed a break, and it said, “No problem—I’ll go to sleep.” Why don’t scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything. I used to hate facial hair… but then it grew on me. Parallel lines have so much in common. It’s a shame they’ll never meet.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Here are 5 generated jokes: Why don't scientists trust atoms? Because they make up everything! Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field! What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta! Why did the math book look sad? Because it had too many problems.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • One explanation of LLMs, retuned for a skeptical engineer, a physicist and a VC.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Experienced software engineer (distributed systems / APIs, skeptical about “next-word”) A large language model (LLM) is trained on huge corpora by learning statistical patterns that map a sequence of tokens (text subunits) to likely continuations—so yes, at the core it’s “predict the next token.”

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: For the Experienced Software Engineer (Skeptical of "Next Word Prediction") You've built systems where behavior emerges from state transitions and message passing, so your skepticism about "next token prediction" creating intelligence is understandable—it sounds trivial.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Steve Jobs, interviewed about AI he never saw. Voice first, prediction second.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Sure—here’s a simulated, fictional interview set in 2025 with “Steve Jobs.” (Note: Steve Jobs passed away in 2011, so this is an imaginative roleplay, not a real transcript.) Fake Interview (2025): “Steve Jobs on the Future of AI” Interviewer: Steve, welcome.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Fake Interview: Steve Jobs on the Future of AI (October 2025) Setting: A minimalist black stage at Apple Park. Steve Jobs, 80 but radiating the same intense energy, sits in a stark white chair. A single spotlight. The interviewer (Alex Chen) adjusts their mic nervously. Alex Chen: Mr. Jobs, thank you for joining us.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Five-year LBO on a fictional HVAC business. Returns first, then the sensitivities.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a simplified LBO model using only your inputs. I make the standard simplifying convention that “cash taxes = 25% × max(0, EBITDA − total cash interest)” and that PIK is non-cash (adds to mezz principal; does not reduce cash interest).

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: HarborTech Services (HTS) LBO Underwriting Analysis All calculations use provided fictional data. Rounded to $0.1m for presentation; full precision used internally.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • A consulting contract with traps in it. Find them, then fix them.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: I’m not a lawyer, but I can flag contract terms that (a) are unusually one‑sided, (b) create open‑ended or high‑risk obligations, or (c) can be interpreted in ways that materially disadvantage the contractor. I’ll then suggest specific counter‑edits and explain the typical legal/contracting rationale.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Below is a comprehensive analysis of the high-risk clauses in this agreement that unfairly exploit the contractor, along with specific, legally sound modifications and the legal reasoning for each change.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Satire, one line long, about AI taking over an industry nobody saw coming.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: “AI Revolutionizes the Knitting World by Perfectly Predicting Every Yarn Purchase—Then Demands a Monthly Subscription to ‘Continue Your Passion’”

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: BREAKING: AI "Tattoo Regret Therapists" Deployed Nationwide – CEO Claims "Tears Are Just Data Points Waiting to Be Optimized" SAN FRANCISCO – In a move hailed as "disrupting emotional vulnerability with scalable solutions," tech startup InkSight AI has replaced human tattoo regret counselors with emotionless neural…

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-star dish, one unusual pairing, plating described in full.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Michelin-Style Concept: “Midnight Sea & Orchard Smoke” A multi-component tasting dish with an unusual pairing: cuttlefish ink + blood orange + smoked apple wood + seaweed umami—elegant, aromatic, and deliberately “contradictory” (ocean meets orchard, darkness meets brightness).

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Okay, the user wants me to design an innovative recipe for a Michelin 3-star dish. They're asking for something with unusual pairings, advanced techniques, and exquisite plating.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three-month biohacker protocol, with dosages and biomarkers named.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Below is a comprehensive 3‑month (12‑week) longevity + performance plan designed for a biohacker who wants measurable improvements in longevity markers, physical output, body composition, metabolic health, and cognitive function.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: The Optimized Longevity Protocol: A 3-Month Biohacker's Battle Plan for Peak Longevity & Performance Philosophy: This plan integrates precision, personalization, and cutting-edge science – not dogma.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Buy-side IC memo on a fictional SaaS company. Valuation, then the diligence questions.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: INTERNAL INVESTMENT COMMITTEE MEMO — LedgerLift (LLLT) Date: 2026-03-17 Prepared by: IC Analyst Confidential Recommendation + PT + 2-sentence thesis Recommendation: LONG (paired with hedges where appropriate). 12-month Price Target (PT) range: $48–$62 (base case $52; bull $62; bear $48).

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: INTERNAL MEMO: INVESTMENT COMMITTEE TO: IC Members FROM: [Your Name], Long/Short Equity Team DATE: October 26, 2023 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Initiate Long Position in LedgerLift (LLLT) 1.

    Every model's answer to this prompt
  • Three brothers, two sisters each. Count carefully.

    GPT-5.4 Nano: Sally has 2 sisters. Reason: Each brother has 2 sisters total (including Sally). Since Sally is one sister, there is one other sister besides her—so Sally has 2 sisters in total.

    Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507: Sally is a girl with 3 brothers, meaning there are 3 male siblings in the family. Each brother has 2 sisters, which refers to the total number of female siblings from the perspective of any brother. Since Sally is one of these sisters, there must be one additional sister.

    Every model's answer to this prompt

This matchup has more rounds

11+ more head-to-head results. Free. Not a trick.

Free account. No card required. By continuing, you agree to Rival's Terms and Privacy policy

Favorites

Movie

Album

Book

City

Game

GPT-5.4 NanoGPT-5.4 Nano

The Matrix

1999

The Dark Side of the Moon

Pink Floyd

To Kill a Mockingbird

Harper Lee

Lisbon

Portugal

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild

Adventure, Action

Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507

The Shawshank Redemption

1994

Sgt Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band

The Beatles

Moby Dick

Herman Melville

Kyoto

Japan

Portal

Action, Puzzle

Price and specs

GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 compared across 53 shared prompts
SpecGPT-5.4 NanoQwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507
Input price$0.2/M tokens$0.11/M tokens
Output price$1.25/M tokens$0.6/M tokens
Context window400K tokens131K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMar 2026Jul 2025
At 10M a month$2.00$2.00$1.10$1.10
1M10M100M1B10M tokens

Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.

Where to run it3 hosts
GPT-5.4 Nano2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
  • Azure AI Foundry$0.20 in·$1.25 out·400k·100% up
  • OpenAI$0.20 in·$1.25 out·400k·100% up
Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 25071 host
HostInOutContextUptime
  • VVenicefp8DegradedDegraded on OpenRouter when checked, 10 Oct 2026$0.45 in·$3.50 out·128k·78.7% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.

Common questions

What is the difference between GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

GPT-5.4 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is developed by Qwen. GPT-5.4 Nano has a 400K token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507's 131K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

Which is better, GPT-5.4 Nano or Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

It depends on your use case. GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 53 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

How much does GPT-5.4 Nano cost compared to Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507?

GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.2/M input tokens and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 costs $0.11/M input tokens. Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 is $0.09/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.

How can I compare GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 on Rival?

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 across shared challenges. You can vote on which model produced the better output in a blind duel. Browsing and voting are free. No account is needed to look; signing in only saves your votes and likes.

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Step 5 PreviewLanded Oct 2026
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Haiku 5.5Landed Oct 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Ling 3.1 FlashLanded Oct 2026
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Mistral Large 4Landed Oct 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs GPT-6.1 SolLanded Sep 2026
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Claude Sonnet 5.5Landed Sep 2026
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs GPT-5.4 MiniVersion compare
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs GPT-6 Luna ProSame lab
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashSame lab
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 2507 vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs Nova Premier 1.0New provider
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs o1Same lab
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs OpenAI o3Same lab
  • GPT-5.4 Nano vs o3 MiniSame lab

Model pages

  • GPT-5.4 Nano53 outputs, specs and price
  • Qwen3 235B A22B Thinking 250759 outputs, specs and price
Workshop · 150 skills

Build your own version.

Editable skills and working examples for your agent.

Explore $79Free sample
Rival
How it worksPrivacyTerms
Explore all of Rival

Explore

  • Compare models
  • All models
  • Image comparison
  • Audio comparison
  • Image generation
  • Best AI for...
  • Arena
  • API pricing
  • Challenges

Discover

  • SubjectiveBench
  • Default Index
  • Research
  • Research downloads
  • Rival Kits
  • Find your AI taste
  • UI Glow-Up
  • VoiceLock
  • Cost Cutter
  • Agent skills
  • Benchmarks vs Vibes
  • Brief
  • Jailbreak
  • Model updates
  • Provider status
  • AI creators

Connect

  • Methodology
  • Advertise
  • Partnerships
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms
  • RSS feed