我将 Qwen 与 GPT-4o 进行了基准测试

𝗜 𝗕𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗵𝗺𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗤𝘄𝗲𝗻 𝗔𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁 𝗚𝗣𝗧-𝟰𝗼

I faced a $4,200 monthly bill from OpenAI for a simple task. This forced me to test other models.

I spent six weeks comparing Qwen and GPT-4o. I used 1,247 prompts across five categories:

• Classification
• Extraction
• Summarization
• Code generation
• Reasoning

The results show that higher cost does not always mean higher quality.

The Data Results:

I compared five models against GPT-4o. Here are the weighted average scores:

• GPT-4o: 0.920
• DeepSeek V4 Pro: 0.902
• Qwen3-32B: 0.848
• DeepSeek V4 Flash: 0.812
• GLM-4 Plus: 0.750

The gap between GPT-4o and Qwen3-32B is small in classification tasks. However, GPT-4o wins significantly in reasoning.

The Cost Impact:

I projected costs based on 47 million input tokens and 12 million output tokens per month.

• GPT-4o: $237.50
• DeepSeek V4 Pro: $52.25
• Qwen3-32B: $28.50
• DeepSeek V4 Flash: $25.89
• GLM-4 Plus: $19.00

My $4,200 bill could have been $339 with the same quality.

How I Fixed My Pipeline:

I moved to a tiered routing system. I use a small model to judge task difficulty.

• Easy tasks go to DeepSeek V4 Flash.
• Medium tasks go to Qwen3-32B.
• Hard tasks go to DeepSeek V4 Pro or GPT-4o.

I also added semantic caching. This allows me to reuse responses for similar queries. It reduced my LLM hits by 40%.

My Decision Guide:

• If you need top quality and have a flexible budget: Use GPT-4o or DeepSeek V4 Pro.
• If you need quality but want to save money: Use Qwen3-32B with smart routing.
• If cost is your only priority: Use DeepSeek V4 Flash.
• If you have massive scale and simple tasks: Use GLM-4 Plus.

Cheaper models often have better latency too. If your users need fast responses, check the tokens per second before you choose.

Source: https://dev.to/rarenode/i-benchmarked-qwen-against-gpt-4o-a-data-scientists-raw-numbers-3d6a