Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.5-9B
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 233× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 6 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 6 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 4 categories and Qwen3.5-9B in 1 category; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 46.1 to 35.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.3% for o1 and 61.7% for Qwen3.5-9B.
- Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.15 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5-9B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.5-9B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.5-9B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 33.8 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $0.15 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 10 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3.5-9B: 35.9 (#217)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 27.5% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use o1 leads
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3.5-9B: 14.5 (#151)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 9.2% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning o1 leads
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3.5-9B: 23.1 (#182)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 12% |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 71.2% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 24.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | 139.46 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math o1 leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.5-9B: 34.8 (#192)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 61.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 48.5% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-9B leads
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3.5-9B: 46.0 (#84)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 79% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | — |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3.5-9B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-9B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.5-9B?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 33.8 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.5-9B costs 233× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5-9B?
Qwen3.5-9B is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.15 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.5-9B better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 35.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-9B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5-9B share?
6 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-9B has 10.