Model comparison
o1-mini vs Qwen3-1.7B
o1-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.0 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 2 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 2 benchmarks with published results for both. o1-mini scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3-1.7B in 2 categories; 3 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where o1-mini leads 35.4 to 16.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 46.9% for o1-mini and 8.1% for Qwen3-1.7B.
- Qwen3-1.7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 34.0 | 26.6 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2025-04-29 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | — | — |
| Max output | — | — |
| Input $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Output $ / M tokens | — | — |
| Results tracked | 39 | 4 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Not comparable
o1-mini: 35.5 (#224), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 32.9% | — |
| WeirdML | 36.3% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 48% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1362 | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 78.8% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Too close to call
o1-mini: 24.6 (#118), Qwen3-1.7B: 24.7 (#115)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | — | 28.4% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3-1.7B leads
o1-mini: 8.8 (#346), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.2 (#267)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.8% | — |
| SimpleBench | 18.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 14% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | — | 0% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 72.3% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1333 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 57.9% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 135.82 | — |
| LiveBench | 57.8% | — |
Math o1-mini leads
o1-mini: 35.4 (#186), Qwen3-1.7B: 16.3 (#294)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 46.9% | 8.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 62% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1358 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 89.2% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 1.7% | — |
Knowledge o1-mini leads
o1-mini: 34.9 (#192), Qwen3-1.7B: 19.6 (#278)
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 62.4% | 38% |
| Confabulations | 18.6% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1316 | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
o1-mini: 43.6 (#182), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1289 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1314 | — |
| LMArena French | 1293 | — |
| LMArena German | 1278 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1245 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1223 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1283 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1303 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
o1-mini: 66.7 (#206), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 65.4% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1304 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
o1-mini: 40.1 (#161), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1320 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
o1-mini: 48.4 (#202), Qwen3-1.7B: —
| Benchmark | o1-mini | Qwen3-1.7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1317 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1244 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 64.9% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1314 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 40.9% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1-mini better than Qwen3-1.7B?
o1-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 34.0 to 26.6 on the Noometry Index.
How many benchmarks do o1-mini and Qwen3-1.7B share?
2 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-mini has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-1.7B has 4.