Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.5-Flash
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 5 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 46.1 to 34.2.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleQA Verified: 41.1% for o1 and 20.3% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1412 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 221.8 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1403 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | 143.98 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 20% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | 6.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 0% |
Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | 20.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 10.5% |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1400 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1374 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.