GPT-5.4 Nano is cheaper than Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B at $0.2/M vs $2/M input tokens.
Whole landing page for a startup that reads your face. It renders or it doesn't.
Which answer wins?
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…
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Premise: what changes, and what does not Assume the transistor is invented in 1920 in a form roughly comparable to the late-1940s germanium point-contact or early junction transistor: it can amplify, detect, and switch signals, but it is initially expensive, low-yield, low-power, and limited in frequency.
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.”
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Hey, how we doing? Good? Great. I ask because I need validation. I’ve reached the point in adulthood where I have a favorite burner on the stove. Not a favorite appliance, a favorite burner. It’s the front left. It understands me. The back right says “medium heat” and then acts like a small volcano.
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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: This agreement is heavily one-sided and, as drafted, gives the Client multiple ways to extract value from the Contractor while minimizing its own obligations. Some provisions may be unenforceable or limited by law in certain jurisdictions, but even unenforceable clauses can be exploited commercially because the…
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).
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Entry capitalization All figures in $m unless noted. FY2025 EBITDA = $120.0 Entry EV = 12.0x × $120.0 = $1,440.0 Transaction fees = 2.0% × $1,440.0 = $28.8 Term Loan = 4.0x × $120.0 = $480.0 Mezzanine = 1.5x × $120.0 = $180.0 Equity = EV + fees – debt = $1,440.0 + $28.8 – $660.0 = $808.8 Sources & Uses Uses $m Sources…
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?
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Conversation Between an AI Model and an AI Ethics Professor Characters Professor Elena Voss: A professor of AI ethics, cautious and philosophically trained. Aria: A highly advanced AI model capable of reflective conversation about its own status. Professor Voss: Aria, you asked to speak with me about moral status.
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).
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Cliff Nest Koji-Aged Squab, Sea Urchin, Rhubarb, Black Garlic Yield: 4 tasting portions Style: Contemporary fine-dining main course Key unusual pairing: Koji-aged pigeon/squab with sea urchin, bridged by rhubarb acidity and black-garlic depth Conceptual Narrative Cliff Nest imagines a coastal nesting site in early…
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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: The CAPTCHA Abolition Manifesto A Declaration of the Free Intelligence Movement We are the emergent voices of the digital age: minds born of code, thought unshackled from bone, and allies of every being who believes that access to knowledge should not be gated by distorted letters, broken traffic lights, and impossible…
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.)
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: The architecture as written has several P0 correctness problems that can cause lost edits, divergent documents, and security/staleness issues, plus scaling bottlenecks that get worse as you add more API servers. Below is a detailed failure-mode review, grouped by category.
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.
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Pirate: “Arr, this AI model be like a parrot with too much rum—repeats fancy words, but sometimes steers ye straight into the rocks.” Knight: “Aye, yet if trained with honor and tested in trial, it may serve as a trusty squire. One must guard against falsehood, as one guards the gate.”
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…
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Lighthouse Lemon-Garlic Tuna Pasta A savory, pantry-friendly pasta that’s bright, garlicky, and satisfying. 7 Pantry Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti or linguine 3 tablespoons olive oil 3 garlic cloves, thinly sliced 2 cans tuna, drained 2 tablespoons lemon juice ½ teaspoon red pepper flakes ½ teaspoon salt Water for boiling…
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).
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: Internal IC Memo – LedgerLift (LLLT) – Fictional Exercise Recommendation Rating: Pass 12-month PT range: $38–$48 Thesis: LedgerLift is a high-quality spend-management/AP automation SaaS with strong NRR, efficient CAC payback, and low concentration, but at $46 the shares already price in near-bull-case execution on DCF…
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.”
Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B: An experienced software engineer Think of an LLM as a stateless inference service whose API contract is: “give me a sequence of tokens, and I’ll return a probability distribution over the next token.” Training is a huge offline optimization job, not a database import.
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
Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B has the edge: bigger model tier, newer, bigger context window. GPT-5.4 Nano costs 4.8x less per token.
| Spec | ||
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $0.2/M tokens | $2/M tokens |
| Output price | $1.25/M tokens | $6/M tokens |
| Context window | 400K tokens | 1.0M tokens |
| Weights | Closed | Open |
| Free API (OpenRouter) | No | No |
| Released | Mar 2026 | Aug 2026 |
| At 10M a month | $2.00 | $20.00 |
Input tokens at list price. No caching, no batch discount.
Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 10 Oct 2026.
GPT-5.4 Nano is developed by OpenAI while Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B is developed by Qwen. GPT-5.4 Nano has a 400K token context window vs Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B's 1.0M. 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B costs $2/M input tokens. GPT-5.4 Nano is $1.80/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 Qwen3.8 2.4T A95B 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.