GPT-5 Nano vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B
Compare GPT-5 Nano and Qwen3.5 397B A17B side-by-side. See how these vision models stack up in Image Captioning, OCR, and Open Prompt.
Compare GPT-5 Nano vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B 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.
Upload an image
Drag and drop an image here, or click to browse
Models in this comparison
GPT-5 Nano vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B: Overview
GPT-5 Nano, released by OpenAI on August 7, 2025, is the smallest and most cost-efficient model in the GPT-5 family. Like its larger counterparts, it is multimodal—accepting text and images, supporting tool use, structured outputs, and reasoning—but it is optimized for speed, low latency, and affordability. It features input and output token limits of roughly 272K and 128K tokens respectively, enabling large-context processing even at its compact scale. Its knowledge cutoff is around May 2024, slightly earlier than the full GPT-5 model.
GPT-5 Nano is well-suited for high-volume or cost-sensitive deployments such as mobile apps, embedded AI systems, or rapid-response APIs. While it offers less depth on complex reasoning and coding tasks compared to GPT-5 Mini or Pro, it retains core multimodal and agentic capabilities, making it an attractive option where efficiency and scale matter more than maximum performance.
Qwen3.5-397B-A17B is a 397B-parameter (17B active) open-weight multimodal model developed by Alibaba’s Qwen team, released on 2026-02-16 under Apache-2.0. It supports text and image inputs with text outputs, combining a sparse Mixture-of-Experts architecture with Gated Delta Networks for efficient scaling. The model provides native vision-language reasoning and a large ~262K token context window, extendable to ~1M tokens.
As the first open-weight release in the Qwen3.5 family, it positions itself as a high-capacity, long-context alternative in the large vision-language space, balancing scale and efficiency via sparse activation. It is designed for advanced reasoning, coding, agent workflows, and multimodal understanding tasks.
GPT-5 Nano vs Qwen3.5 397B A17B Comparison Table
| Property | GPT-5 Nano | Qwen3.5 397B A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Organization | OpenAI | Qwen |
| Category | closed | open |
| Modality | multimodal | multimodal |
| Release Date | Aug 2025 | Feb 2026 |
| Context Window | 400K | 262K |
| Parameters | 397B | |
| License | Proprietary | Apache 2.0 |
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input $/1M | $0.050 | $0.385 |
| Output $/1M | $0.400 | $2.45 |
| Vision Tasks | ||
| Captioning | Demo | Demo |
| Object Detection | Demo | |
| OCR | Demo | Demo |
| Vision Language | ||
| Visual Question Answering | Demo | Demo |
| Classification | Demo | |
| Model Features | ||
| LLMs with Vision Capabilities | ||
| Multimodal Vision | ||
| Foundation Vision | ||
Vision Evalspass/fail results · 67 prompts Score key:≥75%40–74%<40% | ||
| Visual Understanding | ||
| Overall Score | 58.21% | 58.21% |
| Avg Response Time | 6.58s | 56.61s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 1.8K | 1.1K |
| Median output tokens | 591 | 54 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0003 | $0.0006 |
| Defect Detection | 86.7%(13/15) | 66.7%(10/15) |
| Document Understanding | 66.7%(6/9) | 77.8%(7/9) |
| Object Counting | 0%(0/10) | 20%(2/10) |
| Object Understanding | 64.3%(9/14) | 64.3%(9/14) |
| Spatial Understanding | 57.9%(11/19) | 57.9%(11/19) |
| OCR | ||
| Overall Score | 69% | 68.56% |
| Avg Response Time | 6.15s | 7.45s |
| Median input tokensincl. image tokens | 122 | 122 |
| Median output tokens | 539 | 20 |
| Est. cost / taskon this benchmark | $0.0002 | $0.0001 |
| Focused Scene OCR | 64.6%(64/99) | 57.6%(57/99) |
| Handwritten Math | 40%(4/10) | 80%(8/10) |
| License Plate Recognition | 83.3%(25/30) | 100%(30/30) |
| Text Recognition | 70%(21/30) | 70%(21/30) |
| VQA & Extraction | 73.3%(44/60) | 68.3%(41/60) |
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