Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 vs GPT-5 nano

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 vs GPT-5 nano

Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 21 results on 3 sources that measured both models.

AlibabaQwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 Released 21 Jul 2025 · $0.15 in · $0.75 out
OpenAIGPT-5 nano Released 7 Aug 2025 · $0.050 in · $0.40 out
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 wins 121 too close to callGPT-5 nano wins 8

Of the 21 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.

Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano? The short answer

They score about the same, so pick GPT-5 nano: it costs 2.2 times less per token.

  • GPT-5 nano is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.30 per million tokens, 2.2 times less.
  • GPT-5 nano scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 13.0 against 12.0.
  • GPT-5 nano is newer: released 7 Aug 2025, against 21 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.
  • On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge and writing.

Head to head

12.0
Intelligence Index
13.0
$0.30
Price per million tokens, blendedlower is better
$0.14
262,144
Context window, tokens
400,000

Every fact side by side

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507GPT-5 nano
Price per million tokens$0.15 in · $0.75 out$0.050 in · $0.40 out
Blended (3 in : 1 out)$0.30$0.14
Cheapest host, blended$0.15 (GMICloud, FP8)$0.14 (Azure)
Intelligence Index12.013.0
Spring Prompt overall––
Output speed, tokens a second––
Context window262,144 tokens400,000 tokens
Released21 Jul 20257 Aug 2025 (newer)
WeightsOpenClosed
Developer based inChinathe US

Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.

Which is better for what

Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.

Agents and tool useMulti-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls 51 of 164 53 of 164
Reasoning and knowledgeHard questions across science, maths and general knowledge 129 of 198 134 of 198
WritingWhat people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality 85 of 188 151 of 188
Sticking to the factsSummarising without inventing things, and factual answers 98 of 152 125 of 152

Every shared result

Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.

MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507GPT-5 nano
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 109 · 207 of 387 measured 1,422 1,338high reasoning
Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 97 · 204 of 380 measured 1,432 1,339high reasoning
Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 122 · 268 of 385 measured 1,378 1,247high reasoning
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results
Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 153 · 144 of 243 measured 12.0 13.0high reasoning
GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 136 · 162 of 231 measured 75.3% 67.6%high reasoning
Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 144 · 160 of 242 measured 11.1% 9.5%high reasoning
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 3 results
Overall accuracy · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 21 of 81 measured 52.2%bfcl prompt 51.5%bfcl fc
Irrelevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 41 · 14 of 81 measured 81.7%bfcl fc 89.1%bfcl fc
Memory · BFCL% correct, higher is better 26 · 24 of 81 measured 23.9%bfcl fc 24.7%bfcl fc
Show all 21 results (12 more)
MeasureQwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507GPT-5 nano
Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results
Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 103 · 191 of 338 measured 1,447 1,354high reasoning
Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 104 · 200 of 387 measured 1,414 1,327high reasoning
Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 115 · 247 of 386 measured 1,396 1,289high reasoning
Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results
IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 113 · 64 of 195 measured 46.1% 67.6%high reasoning
Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 177 · 162 of 233 measured 33.9% 45.0%high reasoning
Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 110 · 100 of 190 measured 15.2% 17.4%medium reasoning
τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 127 · 119 of 193 measured 33.3% 36.6%high reasoning
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 reported by Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard (BFCL) V4 · 5 results
Multi-turn tasks · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 32 of 81 measured 45.4%bfcl fc 34.5%bfcl fc
Relevance detection · BFCL% correct, higher is better 8 · 8 of 81 measured 93.8%bfcl prompt 93.8%bfcl prompt
Single-turn calls (curated) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 2 · 61 of 81 measured 90.3%bfcl prompt 80.8%bfcl prompt
Single-turn calls (user-contributed) · BFCL% correct, higher is better 15 · 45 of 81 measured 78.7%bfcl prompt 70.7%bfcl prompt
Web search · BFCL% correct, higher is better 20 · 13 of 81 measured 54.0%bfcl fc 72.5%bfcl fc

Quick answers

Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 better than GPT-5 nano?

They score about the same, so pick GPT-5 nano: it costs 2.2 times less per token.

Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

GPT-5 nano is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.30 per million tokens, 2.2 times less.

Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ranks 51 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 53 for GPT-5 nano.

Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ranks 129 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 134 for GPT-5 nano.

Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ranks 85 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 151 for GPT-5 nano.

Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 ranks 98 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 125 for GPT-5 nano.

Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 or GPT-5 nano?

GPT-5 nano: 400,000 tokens, against 262,144 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507.

Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Instruct-2507 and GPT-5 nano on your own prompt

Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.