GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.5 27B

Compare GPT-5.4 and Qwen3.5 27B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in OCR, Image Captioning, and Open Prompt.

Compare GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.5 27B live

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

Extract and compare text from images across multiple models.

Open OCR in the full playground
OpenAIGPT-5.4
Run to compare this model.
QwenQwen3.5 27B
Run to compare this model.

Models in this comparison

OpenAI

GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.5 27B: Overview

GPT-5.4

GPT-5.4 is a proprietary multimodal large language model developed by OpenAI and released on March 5, 2026. It is designed for professional workloads such as advanced software development, research, and agentic automation. The model combines the general reasoning capabilities of the GPT-5 series with software engineering improvements derived from GPT-5.3-Codex. In the API and Codex environments it supports context windows of up to 1 million tokens, enabling long-context reasoning and large-scale code or document workflows.

Compared with GPT-5.2, GPT-5.4 reduces false individual claims by 33% and lowers overall response errors by 18%, improving factual reliability across complex tasks. It is also the first general-purpose OpenAI release with native computer-use capabilities, allowing agents to interact with desktops, browsers, and external applications to complete multi-step workflows. The model family includes three variants: GPT-5.4 (standard), GPT-5.4 Pro for higher-performance workloads, and GPT-5.4 Thinking, a reasoning-oriented version in ChatGPT that presents an upfront plan before generating its response. The API also introduces a Tool Search system that allows models to retrieve tool definitions dynamically, reducing token usage in tool-heavy integrations.

Qwen3.5 27B

Qwen3.5-27B is a multimodal dense hybrid model developed by Alibaba Cloud’s Qwen team and released in February 2026 as a high-precision entry in the Qwen3.5 "Medium" series. Unlike its Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) siblings, the 27B model utilizes a dense architecture combining Gated Delta Networks with a feed-forward structure, activating its full parameter suite for every inference to maximize reliability. This design provides the highest instruction-following and coding accuracy in its class, with a notable IFEval score of 95.0. The model features a native 262K-token context window, extensible to 1M tokens via YaRN (RoPE scaling), and is released under the Apache-2.0 license.

Optimized for agentic workflows, Qwen3.5-27B employs an early-fusion architecture that treats visual and textual data as a unified stream for deep cross-modal reasoning. This unified approach allows the model to excel in technical analysis and software engineering, matching GPT-5-mini with a 72.4% score on SWE-bench Verified. While the larger MoE variants in the family lead in raw knowledge benchmarks, the 27B model offers a stable and high-density alternative for structured data extraction and spatial perception, contributing to the Qwen3.5 family’s generational leap in OCR accuracy over the previous Qwen3-VL series.

GPT-5.4 vs Qwen3.5 27B Comparison Table

PropertyGPT-5.4Qwen3.5 27B
OrganizationOpenAIQwen
Categoryclosedopen
Modalitymultimodalmultimodal
Release DateMar 2026Feb 2026
Context Window1.1M262K
Parameters27B
LicenseProprietaryApache 2.0
Pricing per 1M tokens
Input $/1M$2.50$0.195
Output $/1M$15.00$1.56
Vision Tasks
CaptioningDemoDemo
Object DetectionDemo
OCRDemoDemo
Vision Language
Visual Question AnsweringDemoDemo
ClassificationDemo
Model Features
LLMs with Vision Capabilities
Multimodal Vision
Foundation Vision
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts
Score key:≥75%40–74%<40%
Overall Score
77.61%
71.64%
Avg Response Time7.16s1.98s
Median input tokensincl. image tokens1.4K1.2K
Median output tokens1087
Est. cost / taskon this benchmark$0.0052$0.0002
Defect Detection
86.7%(13/15)
80%(12/15)
Document Understanding
88.9%(8/9)
77.8%(7/9)
Object Counting
40%(4/10)
40%(4/10)
Object Understanding
85.7%(12/14)
78.6%(11/14)
Spatial Understanding
78.9%(15/19)
73.7%(14/19)

Output tokens (incl. reasoning) and est. cost / task are measured on this benchmark from a single low-temperature run, and shown only for models whose run covered at least 90% of prompts. Methodology