ZMIME
Comparison · 3 models · Updated Oct 4, 2026

GPT OSS 20B vs Qwen3.5 9B vs QwQ 32B

Qwen3.5 9B comes out ahead, 72 to 64 and 53 on our weighted score, and it is the cheaper option too.

  1. OpenAI

    GPT OSS 20B

    Released Aug 5, 2025

    64/100
    • ECI137.8
    • Price$0.07 / $0.295
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove GPT OSS 20B
  2. Our pick

    Alibaba (Qwen)

    Qwen3.5 9B

    Released Feb 23, 2026

    72/100
    • ECI139.5
    • Price$0.10 / $0.15
    • Context262K
    Full specs Remove Qwen3.5 9B

  3. Alibaba (Qwen)

    QwQ 32B

    Released Mar 5, 2025

    53/100
    • ECI137.6
    • Price$0.66 / $1.00
    • Context131K
    Full specs Remove QwQ 32B
01 — Verdict

Qwen3.5 9B is our pick

Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against GPT OSS 20B (64) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

  • CapabilityQwen3.5 9BCapabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 · GPT OSS 20B 137.8 · QwQ 32B 137.6
  • Lowest priceQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B $0.113 · GPT OSS 20B $0.126 · QwQ 32B $0.745 per 1M tokens (3:1 blend)
  • Longest contextQwen3.5 9BQwen3.5 9B 262,144 · GPT OSS 20B 131,072 · QwQ 32B 131,072 tokens
  • Widest inputsQwen3.5 9BGPT OSS 20B: Text · Qwen3.5 9B: Text, Images, Video · QwQ 32B: Text
  • Self-hostingAll open weightsEvery model here can be downloaded and run on your own hardware
How the score is built
MeasureWeightGPT OSS 20BQwen3.5 9BQwQ 32B
CapabilityCapabilities Index (ECI)50%636562
Price25%929556
Inputs & features15%458035
Context window10%243724
Overall100%64/10072/10053/100
02 — Side by side

Every spec in one table

Highlighted cells lead their row. Dashes mean the data is not published.

GPT OSS 20B vs Qwen3.5 9B vs QwQ 32B specifications side by side
SpecificationGPT OSS 20BOpenAIQwen3.5 9BAlibaba (Qwen)QwQ 32BAlibaba (Qwen)
Capability
Capabilities Index (ECI)137.8139.5 (best)137.6
ECI rank#108 of 148#101 of 148 (best)#109 of 148
GPQA DiamondGraduate-level science questions60.8%79.0% (best)65.3%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025Competition mathematics65.3% (best)61.7%59.2%
Price per million tokens
Input$0.07 (best)$0.10$0.66
Output$0.295$0.15 (best)$1.00
Cached input———
Blended (3:1)$0.126$0.113 (best)$0.745
Long-context rateSame rateSame rateSame rate
Price sourceMedian of 18 providersMedian of 14 providersMedian of 1 providers
Limits
Context window131,072 tokens262,144 tokens (best)131,072 tokens
Max output32,768 tokens65,536 tokens (best)8,192 tokens
Inputs and features
TextYesYesYes
ImagesNoYesNo
PDFsNoNoNo
AudioNoNoNo
VideoNoYesNo
ReasoningYesYesYes
Tool callingYesYesYes
Structured outputYesYesNo
Availability
WeightsOpenOpenOpen
API model ID———
API providers19 (best)151
ReleasedAug 5, 2025Feb 23, 2026Mar 5, 2025
Knowledge cutoff——Apr 2024
03 — Cost

What would a month cost?

Enter your expected volume in millions of tokens. List prices only; caching and batch discounts would lower these.

  • GPT OSS 20B$1.29
  • Qwen3.5 9B$1.30
  • QwQ 32B$8.60
04 — Questions

Which should you choose?

Which is better: GPT OSS 20B, Qwen3.5 9B or QwQ 32B?

Qwen3.5 9B is the better all-round choice, scoring 72/100 against GPT OSS 20B (64) and QwQ 32B (53). It leads on capability, price, inputs & features and context window. The score weighs capability 50%, price 25%, inputs & features 15%, context window 10%.

Which is cheaper, GPT OSS 20B, Qwen3.5 9B or QwQ 32B?

Qwen3.5 9B is cheaper at $0.10 input / $0.15 output per million tokens (median across 14 API providers). GPT OSS 20B costs $0.07 input / $0.295 output per million tokens (median across 18 API providers); QwQ 32B costs $0.66 input / $1.00 output per million tokens (median across 1 API provider). At a typical mix of three input tokens to one output token, that is $0.113 per million tokens for Qwen3.5 9B versus $0.126 for GPT OSS 20B (1.1× as much) and $0.745 for QwQ 32B (6.6× as much).

Which scores higher on benchmarks?

Qwen3.5 9B scores higher on the Capabilities Index (ECI): Qwen3.5 9B 139.5 (#101 of 148), GPT OSS 20B 137.8 (#108 of 148) and QwQ 32B 137.6 (#109 of 148). The confidence ranges of the top two overlap (136.5–141.3 vs 133.0–139.6), so treat the gap as small. On individual benchmarks: GPQA Diamond — Qwen3.5 9B 79.0%, QwQ 32B 65.3%, GPT OSS 20B 60.8%; OTIS Mock AIME 2024–2025 — GPT OSS 20B 65.3%, Qwen3.5 9B 61.7%, QwQ 32B 59.2%.

Which is better for coding?

There are no published SWE-bench Verified results for GPT OSS 20B, Qwen3.5 9B and QwQ 32B yet, so there is no like-for-like coding score. On overall capability, Qwen3.5 9B leads, which tends to carry over to coding, but test on your own codebase. All three support tool calling for agent workflows.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 9B has the largest context window at 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for GPT OSS 20B and 131,072 for QwQ 32B. Maximum output per response: GPT OSS 20B up to 32,768, Qwen3.5 9B up to 65,536, QwQ 32B up to 8,192 tokens.

Which can read images, PDFs, audio or video?

GPT OSS 20B accepts text; Qwen3.5 9B accepts text, images and video; QwQ 32B accepts text. Qwen3.5 9B handles the widest range of inputs.

Are any of these open source?

Yes, all three publish their weights, so you can self-host them.

Which is newer?

Qwen3.5 9B is the newest, released Feb 23, 2026. GPT OSS 20B came out Aug 5, 2025; QwQ 32B came out Mar 5, 2025. Knowledge cutoff: QwQ 32B Apr 2024.

How do you decide the winner?

Each model gets a 0–100 score on capability (50%, independent benchmark results); price (25%, blended price per million tokens (3 input : 1 output), log scale); inputs & features (15%, image, PDF, audio and video input, tool calling, structured output and reasoning); context window (10%, maximum tokens per request, log scale). Dimensions missing for any model are dropped and the remaining weights rescaled, so every model is judged on the same evidence. Specs and prices come from public model listings and the labs’ own API pages; capability scores come from independent benchmark runs. Data updated Oct 4, 2026.

05 — Keep comparing

Related comparisons