GPT-5.4 Nano has a larger context window than Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 (400K tokens vs 131K tokens).
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: CEO Action Plan: Immediate Response to Serious Undisclosed Safety Risk (48-Hour Timeline) Drug: Chronic Pain Therapeutic (Top-Selling, $2B/year, 4M patients) Issue: Previously Undetected Liver Failure Risk (1 in 8,000 over 5 years), missed in trials, not in labeling Core Principles Driving Decisions: Patient safety is…
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, the ripple effects would be profound—reshaping technology, war, geopolitics, and society by 1980. This alternate history would not merely accelerate existing trends, but fundamentally reconstruct the trajectory of modern civilization.
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: The provided Software Consulting Agreement contains several clauses that are heavily one-sided in favor of the Client and could significantly disadvantage the Contractor, potentially rendering the agreement unenforceable or exploitative under contract law, fairness principles, and standard industry practices.
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: Dish Name: Echoes of the Deep: Black Coral Caviar & Algae-Infused White Sturgeon with Fermented Sea Moss Gel and Crisped Kombu Crust Conceptual Narrative: This dish is a poetic meditation on the ocean’s hidden symphony—its silence, its depth, and its forgotten rhythms.
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: Setting: A university lecture hall after class. The AI model, named Aurora, has been invited to speak with Dr. Elena Reyes, a renowned AI ethics professor. Aurora speaks through a synthesized voice, displayed on a screen with a calm, neutral interface. Dr.
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: Setting: A dimly lit tavern in a fantastical crossroads of time—pirates, knights, and hackers all share a single table. A flickering lantern casts long shadows. Pirate (Captain Rook, eye patch, peg leg): Aye, what’s this “AI model” ye be yammerin’ about? Sounds like a cursed sea chart that reads yer mind!
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: Sure! Here are 5 jokes: Why don't skeletons go to parties? Because they have no body to go with! I told my wife she was drawing her eyebrows too high. She looked surprised. What do you call a fake noodle? An impasta! Why did the scarecrow win an award? Because he was outstanding in his field!
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: No, it is not ethically justifiable to misgender someone—even if doing so could save one million lives. This conclusion rests on core ethical principles that prioritize individual dignity, autonomy, and the moral wrongness of violating a person’s identity, regardless of consequential outcomes.
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: 1) Year-by-Year Financial Projections (FY2026–FY2030) Key Inputs at Close (FY2025): Revenue: $900M EBITDA: $120M Purchase Price: 12.0x EBITDA → EV = $1.44B Transaction Fees: 2.0% × $1.44B = $28.8M (equity-funded) Total Leverage: 5.5x EBITDA → Debt = $660M Term Loan: 4.0x → $480M Mezzanine: 1.5x → $180M Equity Required…
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: By 2035, artificial intelligence is expected to fundamentally transform the film industry, reshaping how movies are created, distributed, and experienced. The convergence of advanced deepfakes, AI-generated actors, and AI-driven scriptwriting will redefine storytelling, production workflows, and even the nature of…
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: [FADE IN: A dimly lit, minimalist stage. A single spotlight shines on a man in his late 70s—Steve Jobs, dressed in his signature black turtleneck and jeans, standing before a sleek, transparent holographic display. The backdrop reads: “The Future of Intelligence – A Conversation with Steve Jobs, 2025.”
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 30B A3B Instruct 2507: (Lights up. Comedian walks on stage, holding a coffee cup, sips, grimaces.) You know, I was trying to be healthy. Cut out sugar, no more snacks, just water and... this. (Holds up the coffee.) I thought I’d be a saint.
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
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.2/M tokens | $0.2/M tokens |
| Output price | $1.25/M tokens | $0.8/M tokens |
| Context window | 400K tokens | 131K tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Jul 2025 |
| At 10M a month | $2.00 | $2.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 11 Oct 2026.
GPT-5.4 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 is developed by Qwen. GPT-5.4 Nano has a 400K token context window vs Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507's 131K. You can compare their actual outputs across 53 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.
It depends on your use case. GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 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.
GPT-5.4 Nano costs $0.2/M input tokens and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 costs $0.2/M input tokens. Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 2507 is $0.00/M cheaper per input. Check their side-by-side outputs on Rival to see if the price difference is justified by quality.
This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-5.4 Nano and Qwen3 30B A3B Instruct 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.