Navigate
AI BENCHY
AD
Track all your projects in one dashboard. Get 📊stats, 🔥heatmaps and 👀recordings in one self-hosted dashboard.
uxwizz.com

GPT-5 Nano (medium) vs Qwen3.6 Flash

The average score is effectively tied at 6.1 vs 6.1. Qwen3.6 Flash has the lower benchmark cost at $0.062 vs $0.114. Qwen3.6 Flash is faster at 3.74s vs 54.87s, with pass rates of 56.1% vs 34.9%.

Last updated at: 2026-07-25

Rank
#139
Total Output Tokens
273,098
Response Time (avg)
54.87s
Total Cost
$0.114
Rank
#135
Total Output Tokens
30,947
Response Time (avg)
3.74s
Total Cost
$0.062
Recommended model Qwen3.6 Flash

It has the best score here (6.1), while costing about 1.9x less than GPT-5 Nano (medium).

Detailed comparison

Metric GPT-5 Nano GPT-5 Nano medium Release: 2025-08-07 Qwen3.6 Flash Qwen3.6 Flash none Release: 2026-04-20
Score 6.1 6.1
Rank #139 #135
Reliability 10.0 10.0
Consistency 7.0 9.6
Tests Correct
Attempt pass rate 56.1% 34.9%
Flaky tests 8 1
Total Runs 66 66
Cost per result 1.267 0.935
Total Cost $0.114 $0.062
Input Price $0.050 / 1M $0.188 / 1M
Output Price $0.400 / 1M $1.125 / 1M
Total Input Tokens 94,935 139,788
Output Tokens 12,042 30,947
Reasoning Tokens 261,056 0
Response Time (avg) 54.87s 3.74s
Response Time (max) 227.89s 48.79s
Response Time (total) 822.99s 82.38s

Hamster playing table tennis

Prompt: Create a detailed SVG illustration of a hamster playing table tennis.

#139 GPT-5 Nano

medium
Cost
$0.006
Time
108.5s
Tokens
13,209 tok

#135 Qwen3.6 Flash

none
Cost
$0.005
Time
20.1s
Tokens
4,211 tok

Top Models by Score

Score vs Total Cost

Response Time (avg)

Score vs Response Time (avg)

Total Output Tokens

Score vs Total Output Tokens

Category Breakdown

Coding Score Consistency Attempt pass rate Flaky tests Tests Correct Response Time (avg) Input Tokens Output Tokens Reasoning Tokens
GPT-5 Nano 7.0 7.7 55.6% 1 41.62s 7,305 740 41,152
Qwen3.6 Flash 5.4 10.0 33.3% 0 1.79s 6,488 889 0

Quick Compare

Switch Comparison Pair