Model comparison
Laguna M.1 vs o1
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.
PoolsideSummary
- The widest gap is in math, where o1 leads 36.1 to 21.1.
- Laguna M.1 accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Laguna M.1 has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| Laguna M.1 | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | Poolside | OpenAI |
| Noometry Index | 32.5 | 40.9 |
| Released | 2026-04-28 | 2024-09-12 |
| Weights | Open | Proprietary |
| Context window | 262K | 200K |
| Max output | 33K | 100K |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | $15 |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | $60 |
| Results tracked | 3 | 52 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
Laguna M.1: 36.6 (#204), o1: 46.1 (#70)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | — | 61.7% |
| LMArena WebDev | 1349 | — |
| WeirdML | — | 47.6% |
| LiveBench Coding | — | 69.7% |
| LMArena Coding | — | 1367 |
| CadEval | — | 56% |
| HumanEval+ | — | 89% |
| MBPP+ | — | 80.2% |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 24.6 (#117)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | — | 10% |
| METR Time Horizons | — | 51.1% |
Reasoning o1 leads
Laguna M.1: 23.1 (#184), o1: 27.9 (#111)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | — | 41.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | — | 30.7% |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 15% |
| EnigmaEval | — | 5.7% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | — | 91.6% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | — | 1371 |
| DTBench | — | 74.7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | — | 65.5% |
| LMCA | — | 22.3% |
| Surface Evolver Bench | 15.6% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | — | 141.91 |
| LiveBench | — | 75.7% |
Math o1 leads
Laguna M.1: 21.1 (#283), o1: 36.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | — | 14.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | — | 73.3% |
| ProofBench | 0% | — |
| LiveBench Math | — | 80.3% |
| LMArena Math | — | 1388 |
| MATH Level 5 | — | 94.7% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | — | 9.3% |
Knowledge Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 41.5 (#110)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | — | 76.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | — | 8% |
| SimpleQA Verified | — | 41.1% |
| Confabulations | — | 11.7% |
| LMArena Expert | — | 1361 |
Multimodal Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 34.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | — | 1168 |
| GeoBench | — | 80% |
| VPCT | — | 37% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | — | 41.4% |
Multilingual Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 48.6 (#142)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | — | 1358 |
| LMArena Chinese | — | 1394 |
| LMArena French | — | 1344 |
| LMArena German | — | 1337 |
| LMArena Japanese | — | 1346 |
| LMArena Korean | — | 1396 |
| LMArena Russian | — | 1356 |
| LMArena Spanish | — | 1345 |
Instruction Following Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 74.8 (#86)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | — | 81.5% |
| LMArena Instruction Following | — | 1367 |
Long Context Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 50.3 (#9)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | — | 83.3% |
| LMArena Longer Query | — | 1378 |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
Laguna M.1: —, o1: 55.6 (#144)
| Benchmark | Laguna M.1 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | — | 1366 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | — | 1348 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | — | 70.2% |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | — | 1369 |
| LiveBench Language | — | 65.4% |
Frequently asked questions
Is Laguna M.1 better than o1?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.5 on the Noometry Index.
Is Laguna M.1 or o1 better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 36.6 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Laguna M.1 does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do Laguna M.1 and o1 share?
0 benchmarks have published results for both models. Laguna M.1 has 3 scored results on Noometry and o1 has 52.