Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GPT-5 nano
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs GPT-5 nano
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 14 results on 3 sources that measured both models.
Of the 14 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-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano? The short answer
They score about the same, so pick GPT-5 nano: it costs 7.1 times less per token.
- GPT-5 nano is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.97 per million tokens, 7.1 times less.
- They score about the same on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index (12.7 and 13.0).
- GPT-5 nano is newer: released 7 Aug 2025, against 25 Jul 2025 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does better for reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GPT-5 nano | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $3.00 out | $0.050 in · $0.40 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.97 | $0.14 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.75 (Alibaba) | $0.14 (Azure) |
| Intelligence Index | 12.7 | 13.0 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 400,000 tokens |
| Released | 25 Jul 2025 | 7 Aug 2025 (newer) |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the 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.
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.
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GPT-5 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 207 of 387 measured | 1,400 | 1,338high reasoning |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 204 of 380 measured | 1,404 | 1,339high reasoning |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 268 of 385 measured | 1,371 | 1,247high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 147 · 144 of 243 measured | 12.7 | 13.0high reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 114 · 162 of 231 measured | 79.0% | 67.6%high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 122 · 160 of 242 measured | 15.9% | 9.5%high reasoning |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result | ||
| Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 44 · 72 of 76 measured | 40.4% | 11.7%high reasoning |
Show all 14 results (7 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | GPT-5 nano |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 85 · 191 of 338 measured | 1,466 | 1,354high reasoning |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 200 of 387 measured | 1,385 | 1,327high reasoning |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 247 of 386 measured | 1,377 | 1,289high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 4 results | ||
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 101 · 64 of 195 measured | 51.2% | 67.6%high reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 99 · 162 of 233 measured | 72.0% | 45.0%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 116 · 100 of 190 measured | 13.6% | 17.4%medium reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 119 of 193 measured | 53.2% | 36.6%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 better than GPT-5 nano?
They score about the same, so pick GPT-5 nano: it costs 7.1 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
GPT-5 nano is cheaper: $0.14 against $0.97 per million tokens, 7.1 times less.
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
GPT-5 nano ranks 53 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 138 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 117 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-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 122 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-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 92 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-Thinking-2507 or GPT-5 nano?
GPT-5 nano: 400,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-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.