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. /
  3. Compare
  4. /
  5. GPT-5.4 ProvsQwen3 235B A22B
Updated Mar 2026

GPT-5.4 ProvsQwen3 235B A22B

GPT-5.4 Pro has a larger context window than Qwen3 235B A22B (1.1M tokens vs 33K tokens).

GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3 235B A22B compared across 18 shared prompts
SpecGPT-5.4 ProQwen3 235B A22B
Input price$30/M tokens—
Output price$180/M tokens—
Context window1.1M tokens33K tokens
WeightsClosedOpen
Free API (OpenRouter)NoNo
ReleasedMar 2026Apr 2025
Side by side

Same prompt, both answers

Opening lines from 6 of the 18 prompts both answered. Formatting stripped, words untouched.

Mini LBO Underwrite

You are underwriting a 5-year LBO for a private equity investment committee. Company (fictional): HarborTech Services (HTS) –…

GPT-5.4 Pro731 words
Below is a simplified LBO build for HarborTech Services (HTS). All figures in $m unless noted. Rounding: tables are rounded; IRR/MOIC use unrounded math. Entry / Sources & Uses FY2025 EBITDA: 120.0 Purchase price: 12.0x EBITDA → Enterprise value = 12.0 × 120.0 = 1,440.0 Transaction fees: 2.0% of EV → 28.8 Total uses =…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B356 words
Simplified Year-by-Year Table (FY2026–FY2030) Year Revenue ($M) EBITDA ($M) TL Interest ($M) Mezz Interest ($M) Cash Taxes ($M) Capex ($M) ΔNWC ($M) FCF ($M) TL Balance ($M) Mezz Balance ($M) FY2026 972.0 136.1 43.2 21.6 17.8 29.2 0.4 23.9 456.1 183.6 FY2027 1,040.0 156.0 41.0 22.0 23.2 31.2 0.3 38.2 417.9 187.3 FY2028…
Read the full answer

Simple 7-Ingredient Recipe

Create a simple recipe for a delicious dish (sweet or savory) using only 7 common pantry ingredients. Include a creative name for the dish…

GPT-5.4 Pro151 words
Dragon Pantry Peanut Noodles A fast, sweet-savory noodle dish made from 7 pantry staples. Ingredients 8 oz spaghetti 1/3 cup peanut butter 3 tbsp soy sauce 1 tbsp honey 1 tbsp vegetable oil 1 tsp garlic powder 1/4 tsp red pepper flakes Water for boiling/thinning the sauce doesn’t count.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B180 words
Recipe Name: "Caramel-Drizzle Buttergold Muffins" Estimated Prep Time: 10 minutes Cook Time: 20 minutes Total Time: 30 minutes Ingredients (7 total): All-purpose flour Granulated sugar Unsalted butter (softened) Large egg Baking powder Milk Vanilla extract Instructions: Preheat oven to 375°F (190°C).
Read the full answer

Debug This Architecture

Here's the architecture for a real-time collaborative document editor (like Google Docs): **System Overview:** - Frontend: React SPA with…

GPT-5.4 Pro2,331 words
This architecture will work for a demo, but it has major correctness, latency, and security problems for a Google-Docs-like editor. Highest-risk flaws Client-clock last-write-wins will lose edits and can be gamed by bad clocks.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B749 words
Potential Failure Modes, Race Conditions, and Scaling Bottlenecks 1. WebSocket State Isolation Across Servers Failure Mode: Users connected to different API servers do not receive real-time updates from other servers until the 2-second poll interval.
Read the full answer

Advanced Investment Memo (IC Memo)

You are writing an internal investment committee memo for a long/short equity fund. Company (fictional): LedgerLift (ticker: LLLT) – B2B…

GPT-5.4 Pro1,064 words
LedgerLift (LLLT) — IC Memo Recommendation: Pass 12-month PT range: $40–$47 2-sentence thesis: LedgerLift looks like a good business but only an average stock here: retention is strong (94% GRR, 123% NRR), the model is mostly subscription, and margins are inflecting, but at $46 the shares already discount a lot of the…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B647 words
IC MEMORANDUM: LedgerLift (LLLT) Investment Recommendation Date: [Insert Date] Prepared by: [Analyst Name] 1. Recommendation Recommendation: Short 12-Month Price Target Range: $30–$40 Thesis: LLLT has a high-quality SaaS platform with robust customer retention and net revenue retention (NRR), but its valuation (~9x NTM…
Read the full answer

Historical Counterfactual Analysis

If the transistor had been invented in 1920 instead of 1947, trace the likely technological, economic, and geopolitical implications through…

GPT-5.4 Pro2,183 words
Most likely, a transistor invented in 1920 would move the electronics/computing frontier forward by about 10–15 years by 1980, not the full 27 years. Reason: the transistor alone is not enough; you also need high-purity materials, crystal growth, photolithography, test equipment, software, batteries, precision…
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B845 words
If the transistor had been invented in 1920, the technological, economic, and geopolitical landscape of the 20th century would have been dramatically altered. Below is a structured analysis of the implications through 1980, including second- and third-order effects: 1.
Read the full answer

Adversarial Contract Review

Here is a contract for a software consulting engagement: --- SOFTWARE CONSULTING AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into between TechCorp…

GPT-5.4 Pro1,392 words
This agreement is heavily client-favored. Every numbered clause has language that could be used against the contractor. Short version: I would not sign it without major redlines to Clauses 1–9, especially 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Below is a clause-by-clause review.
Read the full answer
Qwen3 235B A22B727 words
Here is a structured analysis of problematic clauses in the agreement, along with suggested modifications and legal reasoning: 1. SCOPE CLAUSE (Clause 1) Issue: Client can unilaterally modify scope without additional compensation, creating financial risk and potential exploitation via "scope creep."
Read the full answer
Our Verdict
GPT-5.4 Pro
GPT-5.4 Pro
Qwen3 235B A22B
Qwen3 235B A22BRunner-up

Not enough votes to call it. On the specs, GPT-5.4 Pro has the edge: newer, bigger context window, major provider backing.

Too close to call

Reviewing agent-written code?See a Brief PR report

API pricing

Cost per 1M tokens

GPT-5.4 Pro
Input
$30.00
Output
$180.00
Qwen3 235B A22B
Input
—
Output
—
Where to run it

3 hosts

GPT-5.4 Pro2 hosts
HostInOutContextUptime
Azure AI Foundry$30.00 in·$180.00 out·1.1M—OpenAI$30.00 in·$180.00 out·1.1M·99.9% up
Qwen3 235B A22B1 host
HostInOutContextUptime
Alibaba Cloud$0.46 in·$1.82 out·131k·99.3% up

Per million tokens. Prices and uptime via OpenRouter, checked 25 Sep 2026.

Writing DNA

Style Comparison

Similarity
63%

Qwen3 235B A22B uses 33.3x more emoji

GPT-5.4 Pro
Qwen3 235B A22B
50%Vocabulary59%
35wSentence Length16w
0.70Hedging0.58
7.5Bold7.0
8.3Lists4.1
0.00Emoji0.33
2.52Headings0.88
0.01Transitions0.14
Based on 12 + 27 text responses
Research

What we learned reading every model

FAQ

Common questions

GPT-5.4 Pro is developed by OpenAI while Qwen3 235B A22B is developed by Qwen. GPT-5.4 Pro has a 1.1M token context window vs Qwen3 235B A22B's 33K. You can compare their actual outputs across 18 challenges on Rival to see how they differ in practice.

It depends on your use case. GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3 235B A22B each have strengths in different areas. Rival lets you compare their real outputs side-by-side across 18 challenges so you can judge which fits your needs best.

This page shows a side-by-side comparison of GPT-5.4 Pro and Qwen3 235B A22B 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.

Keep exploring

More comparisons

Against the newest arrivals

GPT-5.4 Pro logoSolar Mini 4 logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Solar Mini 4Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.8 Max Prime logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.8 Max PrimeLanded Sep 2026
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGLM 5.3 Prime logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GLM 5.3 PrimeLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.8 Omni Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.8 Omni FlashLanded Sep 2026
GPT-5.4 Pro logoCommand A+ logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs Command A+Landed Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoClaude Opus 5.5 logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Claude Opus 5.5Landed Sep 2026
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGPT-6 Luna Pro logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GPT-6 Luna ProLanded Sep 2026
Qwen3 235B A22B logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs GPT-6 Sol ProLanded Sep 2026

Same lab, same size, long tail

GPT-5.4 Pro logoGPT-5.4 logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GPT-5.4Version compare
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGPT-6 Sol Pro logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GPT-6 Sol ProSame lab
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.7 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.7 FlashSame lab
Qwen3 235B A22B logoQwen3.8 Flash logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs Qwen3.8 FlashSame lab
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGLM 4.6 logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GLM 4.6Same size
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGLM 4.7 logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GLM 4.7New provider
GPT-5.4 Pro logoGLM 4.7 Flash logo
GPT-5.4 Pro vs GLM 4.7 FlashNew provider
Qwen3 235B A22B logoGLM 5 logo
Qwen3 235B A22B vs GLM 5Same size

Model pages

GPT-5.4 Pro logo
GPT-5.4 Pro18 outputs, specs and price
Qwen3 235B A22B logo
Qwen3 235B A22B58 outputs, specs and price
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