Roboflow

GPT-5.4 Mini vs Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8 27B averages 69.5% across four Vision Evals tasks and GPT-5.4 Mini 53.2% across five (#28 and #57 of 69 models), so Qwen3.8 27B leads overall.

  • Qwen3.8 27B wins all 4 tasks both ran, with its widest lead on object detection (65.7% vs 15.8%).
  • Qwen3.8 27B is about a quarter of the cost: $0.0009 vs $0.0034 overall average cost per sample.
  • GPT-5.4 Mini is faster: 5.5s vs 18.0s per sample.

Compare GPT-5.4 Mini vs Qwen3.8 27B live

Run the same image across every model that supports a task and compare their outputs side-by-side.

Detect and compare bounding boxes across models on the same image.

Open Object Detection in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.4 Mini
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.8 27B
Run to compare this model.

GPT-5.4 Mini vs Qwen3.8 27B on Vision Evals

Score by taskGPT-5.4 MiniQwen3.8 27B
Object Detection
15.8
65.7
Counting
58.6
64.9
Reasoning
57.0
62.0
Identification
83.3
85.4

Roboflow Vision Evals. Full breakdown below.

GPT-5.4 Mini vs Qwen3.8 27B Comparison Table

Evals updated November 12, 2026Pricing updated November 13, 2026

PropertyGPT-5.4 MiniQwen3.8 27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2026Aug 2026
Context Window400K262K
ParametersUnknown27.78B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Commercial usecommercial use per vendor termsfree for commercial use
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$0.750$0.150
Output $/1M$4.50$1.88
Vision Tasks
Both support 10 more tasks
Model Features
Both support 3 more features
Vision Evalsground-truth scores across 5 vision tasks, pooled at low effort
Overall
53.2%
69.5%*
Quantizationsself-hosted
BF1669.5%FP868.7%AWQ-INT469.5%hardware →
Avg cost / sample$0.0034$0.0009
Avg speed / sample5.51s17.99s
By task
Object Detection (low)
15.8%
±0.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.3 to 16.1
$0.0044
65.7%
±1.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.6 to 66.5
$0
Object Detection (high)
16.6%
±0.8, Mean of 3 runs, range 15.8 to 17.4
$0.030
66.1%
±1.4, Mean of 3 runs, range 64.9 to 67.8
$0
Counting (low)
58.6%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 56.8 to 60.8
$0.0019
64.9%
±4.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.8 to 68.9
$0
Counting (high)
64.9%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 63.5 to 67.6
$0.0073
68.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 66.2 to 70.3
$0
Identification (low)
83.3%
±1.6, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 84.4
$0.0013
85.4%
±4.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 81.3 to 90.6
$0
Identification (high)
82.3%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 78.1 to 84.4
$0.0055
87.5%
±3.1, Mean of 3 runs, range 84.4 to 90.6
$0
OCR (low)
51.1%
$0.0035
–
by category
Single value
41.3%
Transcription
77.3%
Structured JSON
73.6%
Text localization
4.1%
OCR (high)
55.8%
$0.027
–
by category
Single value
47.0%
Transcription
78.5%
Structured JSON
79.0%
Text localization
6.1%
Reasoning (low)
57.0%
±3.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 54.3 to 60.9
$0.0022
62.0%
±2.0, Mean of 3 runs, range 60.3 to 64.2
$0
Reasoning (high)
64.0%
±1.3, Mean of 3 runs, range 62.9 to 65.6
$0.0096
66.0%
±0.7, Mean of 3 runs, range 65.6 to 66.9
$0

GPT-5.4 Mini vs Qwen3.8 27B: Overview

GPT-5.4 Mini

GPT-5.4 mini is a fast, cost-efficient model developed by OpenAI and released on March 17, 2026, optimized for high-throughput workloads and subagent orchestration. It supports text and image inputs within a 400,000-token context window, making it ideal for processing extensive visual datasets and large codebases in a single request. Designed for low-latency production environments, the model integrates with key API features including function calling, web search, and tool-based computer use, allowing it to assist in automated workflows that require navigating digital interfaces.

Compared to the previous GPT-5 mini, this version runs more than twice as fast while approaching the performance levels of the flagship GPT-5.4 on reasoning and coding benchmarks. While the larger GPT-5.4 introduces native, state-of-the-art computer-use capabilities, GPT-5.4 mini provides a scalable alternative for interpreting screenshots and reasoning over dense UI layouts. For vision tasks on Playground, it excels at extracting structured information from visual documents and assisting in agentic tasks that involve real-time interpretation of software interfaces alongside text.

Qwen3.8 27B

Qwen3.8-27B is a dense vision-language model of roughly 27.78 billion parameters from Alibaba's Qwen team, built on the architectural foundation established by the Qwen3.5 generation. It takes interleaved text, image, and video input through an integrated vision encoder and produces text, covering document and chart understanding, visual question answering, front-end code generation from visual references, and agentic computer-use workflows. The decoder is a hybrid stack of 64 layers that repeats a pattern of three Gated DeltaNet linear-attention blocks, each followed by a feed-forward block, then one grouped-query full-attention block, so only a quarter of the layers maintain a conventional key-value cache. Native context length is 262,144 tokens.

Post-training targets long-horizon agentic work, and the model exposes per-request thinking control that lets callers switch reasoning traces on or off and choose a reasoning effort level. Multi-token prediction weights are trained alongside the main network for speculative decoding.

Frequently Asked Questions

On Roboflow's Vision Evals, Qwen3.8 27B performed better. It scores higher on all 4 vision tasks and averages 69.5% (#28 of 69) against 53.2% (#57 of 69) for GPT-5.4 Mini. These scores measure vision capabilities only; either model may perform differently on work outside this benchmark's tasks.

No. On the Vision Evals Object Detection benchmark at low effort, Qwen3.8 27B leads with 65.7% against 15.8%. This is the widest gap between the two models across the benchmark's tasks.

Qwen3.8 27B is cheaper to run. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals task mix it averaged $0.0009 per sample against $0.0034. Actual costs depend on your image sizes, prompts, and output length.

GPT-5.4 Mini is faster. Across Roboflow's Vision Evals it averaged 5.5s per inference against 18.0s. Latency varies with image size, prompt length, and provider load, so treat these as relative rather than guaranteed figures.

Yes. The comparison demo on this page runs both models on the same image side by side for open prompts and object detection in the free Roboflow Playground. You can try it instantly, and a free account unlocks unlimited runs.