Model comparison
o1-mini vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 34.0 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 14 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. o1-mini scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 6 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads 25.9 to 8.8.
Side by side
| o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 34.0 | 38.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 39 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
o1-mini: 35.5 (#224), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1362 | 1314 |
| Aider Polyglot | 32.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 36.3% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 48% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 78.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1-mini: 24.6 (#118), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
Reasoning Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 leads
o1-mini: 8.8 (#346), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1333 | 1299 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 18.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 14% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 72.3% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.82 | — |
| LiveBench | 57.8% | — |
Math Too close to call
o1-mini: 35.4 (#186), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1358 | 1298 |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 46.9% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 62% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 89.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
o1-mini: 34.9 (#192), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1316 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 62.4% | — |
| Confabulations | 18.6% | — |
Multilingual o1-mini leads
o1-mini: 43.6 (#182), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1289 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1314 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1278 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1245 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1283 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1293 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1223 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1303 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
o1-mini: 66.7 (#206), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1304 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 65.4% | — |
Long Context Too close to call
o1-mini: 40.1 (#161), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1320 | 1292 |
Writing & Preference Too close to call
o1-mini: 48.4 (#202), Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1317 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1244 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1314 | 1299 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 64.9% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 40.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1-mini better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 is the stronger model overall, scoring 38.8 to 34.0 on the Noometry Index.
Is o1-mini or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?
Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 35.5 in the Noometry coding category.
How many benchmarks do o1-mini and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?
14 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-mini has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.