// head_to_head

GPT-6 Astra vs Qwen Plus 0728

Published LiveBench scores across all seven categories, live list pricing, context windows, and the measured cost of a point of capability — for both models, side by side.

OpenRouter + LiveBenchAll comparisonsFull leaderboard

Qwen Plus 0728 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here.

Qwen Plus 0728 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

openai

GPT-6 Astra

Blended / 1M
$20.00
Context
1.1M
Released
Sep 4, 2026
Overall score
82.2
reasoningtool callingfile inputimage inputprompt caching

qwen

Qwen Plus 0728

Blended / 1M
$0.390
Context
1M
Released
Sep 8, 2025
Overall score
Not evaluated
tool calling

Specs and pricing

MetricGPT-6 AstraQwen Plus 0728
LiveBench overall

Mean of the seven LiveBench category scores, 0–100. Higher is better.

82.2
Cost per point

Measured benchmark spend divided by overall score — dollars per point of capability.

$0.3942
Blended price / 1M

3:1 input:output mix, the usual shape of production traffic.

$20.00$0.390win
Input price / 1M$10.00$0.260win
Output price / 1M$50.00$0.780win
Cached input / 1M

Price of an input token served from the prompt cache, where the provider publishes one.

$1.00
Context window1.1M1M
Max output tokens128Kwin33K

Benchmarks by category

An overall score averages away the thing you probably care about. These are the seven LiveBench categories scored separately — GPT-6 Astra on top, Qwen Plus 0728 below, both out of 100.

Agentic coding
57.3
Coding
80.4
Reasoning
92.7
Mathematics
96.8
Data analysis
83.0
Language
89.4
Instruction following
75.6

What each one costs to run

Per-token prices are hard to feel. These are monthly list costs for both models across five workload shapes, using each provider's published cached-input rate where there is one.

WorkloadGPT-6 AstraQwen Plus 0728
Support chatbot

1.2K in / 400 out × 200K requests

$5,752/mo$124.80/mo
RAG assistant

8K in / 600 out × 100K requests

$7,400/mo$254.80/mo
Coding agent

40K in / 4K out × 20K requests

$6,960/mo$270.40/mo
Document extraction

20K in / 1.5K out × 50K requests

$13,300/mo$318.50/mo
Bulk classification

500 in / 20 out × 5M requests

$25,500/mo$728.00/mo
Run these two through the cost calculator

Which should you pick?

You are cost-constrained

Qwen Plus 0728

Cheaper on blended list price at $0.390 per million tokens.

GPT-6 Astra vs Qwen Plus 0728 FAQ

Which is better, GPT-6 Astra or Qwen Plus 0728?

Qwen Plus 0728 is the cheaper of the two; neither can be ranked on quality here. Qwen Plus 0728 does not have a published LiveBench run, so this comparison covers price, context and declared capabilities only. A missing score means "not evaluated", not "worse" — the right way to separate these two is an eval on your own workload.

Is GPT-6 Astra cheaper than Qwen Plus 0728?

Qwen Plus 0728 is cheaper. On a 3:1 input:output blend, GPT-6 Astra lists at $20.00 per million tokens and Qwen Plus 0728 at $0.390 — Qwen Plus 0728 is 51× cheaper. Input and output are priced separately — GPT-6 Astra charges $10.00 in and $50.00 out, Qwen Plus 0728 charges $0.260 and $0.780 — so the model that looks cheaper flips depending on how output-heavy your workload is.

Does GPT-6 Astra or Qwen Plus 0728 have a bigger context window?

They are effectively the same — 1.1M for GPT-6 Astra and 1M for Qwen Plus 0728.

Do GPT-6 Astra and Qwen Plus 0728 support prompt caching?

GPT-6 Astra publishes a cached-input rate of $1.00 per million tokens against a full input rate of $10.00. The catalogue lists no separate cached rate for Qwen Plus 0728, which means the provider does not price it separately here — not that caching is unavailable.

Related comparisons

How these numbers are produced

  • Price — provider list price from OpenRouter, refreshed every 15 minutes. “Blended” is a 3:1 input:output mix.
  • ScoresLiveBench release 2026-06-25, using their own category map. Each model shows its strongest published run. A blank means “not evaluated”, never “bad”.
  • Cost per point — the measured dollars LiveBench spent on the run, divided by the score it earned.
  • “Win” — awarded only past a threshold: one full point on a benchmark score, 10% on a price, 25% on a context window. Anything tighter reports as a tie, because effort settings alone move a LiveBench score by more than that.

Published benchmarks rank models on someone else's tasks. Before committing, see LLM & agent evaluation for building an eval on your own.