Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen Max
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Max in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 45.7 to 30.3.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.3% for o1 and 16.1% for Qwen Max.
- Qwen Max is cheaper at $1.60 / $6.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- o1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 33K.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen Max | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 34.4 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2024-04-03 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 33K |
| Max output | 100K | 8K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.60 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $6.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 23 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 45.7 (#64), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#288)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | 21.8% |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1288 |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.3 (#111), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning o1 leads
o1: 27.5 (#103), Qwen Max: 24.1 (#154)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1270 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| DTBench | 74.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LMCA | 22.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.92 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math o1 leads
o1: 34.9 (#150), Qwen Max: 21.0 (#272)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 16.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1275 |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | 67.2% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | 1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
Knowledge o1 leads
o1: 41.5 (#101), Qwen Max: 30.3 (#222)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 56.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1248 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 33.6 (#87), Qwen Max: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual o1 leads
o1: 48.8 (#137), Qwen Max: 42.0 (#197)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1263 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1254 |
| LMArena French | 1343 | 1329 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1254 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1205 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1141 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1274 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1290 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
o1: 75.0 (#82), Qwen Max: 66.7 (#203)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1262 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen Max: 39.4 (#175)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | 66.7% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1289 |
Writing & Preference o1 leads
o1: 55.8 (#139), Qwen Max: 48.0 (#200)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1282 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1248 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | 1277 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen Max?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 34.4 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Max costs 9.4× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen Max?
Qwen Max is cheaper. It lists at $1.60 per million input tokens and $6.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen Max better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 30.3 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
o1 does, with 200K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen Max share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Max has 23.