Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.5 27B
o1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 21 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 46.1 to 38.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 22.3% for o1 and 34% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.5 27B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 41.9 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $2.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 28 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 47.6% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1427 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3.5 27B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |
Reasoning Too close to call
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1414 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 82.4% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 34% |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3.5 27B leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1429 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |
Knowledge o1 leads
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3.5 27B: 38.0 (#150)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |
Multimodal Qwen3.5 27B leads
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | 1241 |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5 27B leads
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1407 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1413 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5 27B leads
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1410 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?
o1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5 27B?
Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.5 27B 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?
Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?
21 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.