Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen Plus
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 44× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 19 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 19 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen Plus in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where o1 leads 41.5 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.3% for o1 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 100K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1328 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 24% |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 63.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math o1 leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
Knowledge o1 leads
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1328 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual o1 leads
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |
Instruction Following o1 leads
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1303 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1324 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
Writing & Preference o1 leads
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1336 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen Plus?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 44× 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 Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen Plus share?
19 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.