Directory · Model comparison
GPT-4o vs Qwen3.6-Flash
Side-by-side API economics and benchmarks. Per-1M input and output rates, context window, and verified metrics.
Tale of the tape
Head-to-head specs pulled from each model profile.
| Metric | GPT-4o | Qwen3.6-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Input cost / 1M | $2.50 | $0.25 |
| Output cost / 1M | $10.00 | $1.50 |
| Context window | 128,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| MMLU score | — | — |
Cost verdict
Enter monthly input and output volumes to see total cost savings.
GPT-4o
- Input: 1M × $2.50 = $2.50
- Output: 1M × $10.00 = $10.00
- Total
- $12.50
Qwen3.6-Flash
- Input: 1M × $0.25 = $0.25
- Output: 1M × $1.50 = $1.50
- Total
- $1.75
Total cost savings
$10.75
Qwen3.6-Flash saves $10.75 per month vs the other model at this volume.
Model routing savings
Uses this page's verified rates. GPT-4o is the premium route (higher combined per-1M cost); Qwen3.6-Flash handles routine traffic.
All premium
GPT-4o
$625.00
100% of input and output on the premium route
Routed stack
80% → Qwen3.6-Flash
20% → GPT-4o
$195.00
- Routine slice
- $70.00
- Premium slice
- $125.00
Monthly savings
$430.00
68.8% lower
Rates pulled from this page's model database entries (gpt-4o, qwen3-6-flash) — same per-1M input/output figures as Tale of the tape. Production routing needs quality gates and monitoring.
Related comparisons
More head-to-head model matchups.