Model comparison

o1 vs Qwen1.5-7B

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 12 shared benchmarks.

o1 OpenAI

40.9

Rank #143 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-7B Alibaba (Qwen)

31.4

Rank #273 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.6 to 29.6.
  • Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1 and Qwen1.5-7B specifications
o1Qwen1.5-7B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.931.4
Released2024-09-122024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$15—
Output $ / M tokens$60—
Results tracked5213

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding o1 leads

o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen1.5-7B: 32.2 (#276)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Coding13671107
Aider Polyglot61.7%—
WeirdML47.6%—
LiveBench Coding69.7%—
CadEval56%—
HumanEval+89%—
MBPP+80.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen1.5-7B: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons51.1%—

Reasoning o1 leads

o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen1.5-7B: 20.4 (#240)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Hard Prompts13711065
SimpleBench41.7%—
ARC-AGI-130.7%—
Chess Puzzles15%—
EnigmaEval5.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning91.6%—
DTBench74.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA22.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index141.91—
LiveBench75.7%—

Math o1 leads

o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen1.5-7B: 31.4 (#224)

Math benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Math13881080
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)14.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.3%—
LiveBench Math80.3%—
MATH Level 594.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)9.3%—

Knowledge o1 leads

o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.7 (#243)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Expert13611055
GPQA Diamond76.8%—
Humanity's Last Exam8%—
SimpleQA Verified41.1%—
Confabulations11.7%—
MMLU—62.6%

Multimodal Not comparable

o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen1.5-7B: —

Multimodal benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Vision1168—
GeoBench80%—
VPCT37%—
SpatialViz-Bench41.4%—

Multilingual o1 leads

o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen1.5-7B: 28.5 (#271)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Non-English13581058
LMArena Chinese13941141
LMArena Russian13561006
LMArena French1344—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Japanese1346—
LMArena Korean1396—
LMArena Spanish1345—

Instruction Following o1 leads

o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen1.5-7B: 54.1 (#281)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Instruction Following13671058
LiveBench Instruction Following81.5%—

Long Context o1 leads

o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#266)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Longer Query13781090
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—

Writing & Preference o1 leads

o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen1.5-7B: 29.6 (#293)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-7B
LMArena Text13661083
LMArena Creative Writing13481035
LMArena Multi-Turn13691062
Short-Story Creative Writing70.2%—
LiveBench Language65.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o1 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 31.4 on the Noometry Index.

Is o1 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 32.2 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.

Related comparisons

Go deeper