GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) vs Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)
Which is better for the money: GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) by OpenAI or Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) by Alibaba? Intelligence, total benchmark cost, and end-to-end time from Artificial Analysis & other sources, snapshot 2026-10-25.
Trade-off
Verdict
Depends on your budget
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) scores 27.2 points higher (38.4 vs 11.2) but costs 16× as much to run the benchmark ($5294 vs $329; flagship vs mid-range cost classes). They are not alternatives at one budget: pick GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) when you need intelligence above 11.2, and Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) when 11.2 is enough.
| Metric | GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) | Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence (higher is better) | 38.4 | 11.2 | −70.8% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 70.8% less intelligent |
| Total AA cost (lower is better) | $5,294.36 | $328.86 | −93.8% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 93.8% cheaper |
| End-to-end time (lower is better) | 55.87s | 43.21s | −22.7% Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is 22.7% faster |
| Price per 1M tokens (in / out) | $5.00 / $30.0 | $0.14 / $0.20 | |
| Input modalities | Text, Image | Text, Image, Video |
Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) vs GPT-5.5 (Xhigh): 70.8% less intelligence, 93.8% less cost to run the AA benchmark, and 22.7% faster end-to-end.
Today's Pareto frontier
Against the frontier
- GPT-5.5 (Xhigh) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, Claude Opus 5.5 (Xhigh, Default Fallback) scores 56.00 for $4057.
- Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning) is off the frontier: at the same or lower cost, MiMo-V2.6-Pro scores 46.30 for $207.
GPT-5.5 (Xhigh)Qwen3.5 9B (Reasoning)Today's Pareto frontierOpen-weights frontierEvery other model
Matchup
Compare something else
Agents:
Accept: text/markdown or ?format=md returns this page as Markdown. JSON: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5/qwen3-5-9b · Markdown: /api/v1/compare/gpt-5-5/qwen3-5-9b?format=md · llms.txt · agent skill