Noometry

Model comparison

o1 vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 7 shared benchmarks.

o1 OpenAI

40.9

Rank #143 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

42.2

Rank #117 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 48.5 to 36.1.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 35.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
  • Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1Qwen3.6 27B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.942.2
Released2024-09-122026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K262K
Max output100K66K
Input $ / M tokens$15$0.60
Output $ / M tokens$60$3.60
Results tracked5211

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

Category by category

Coding o1 leads

o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3.6 27B: 39.1 (#163)

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
Aider Polyglot61.7%—
SciCode—37.3%
WeirdML47.6%—
LiveBench Coding69.7%—
LMArena Coding1367—
CadEval56%—
HumanEval+89%—
MBPP+80.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons51.1%—

Reasoning o1 leads

o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3.6 27B: 25.0 (#153)

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
Chess Puzzles15%22%
DTBench74.7%78.1%
LMCA22.3%34.5%
Epoch Capabilities Index141.91146.5
SimpleBench41.7%—
ARC-AGI-130.7%—
CritPt—0.9%
EnigmaEval5.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning91.6%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1371—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LiveBench75.7%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.6 27B: 48.5 (#62)

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)14.7%35.1%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.3%91.1%
LiveBench Math80.3%—
LMArena Math1388—
MATH Level 594.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)9.3%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#63)

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond76.8%85.9%
Humanity's Last Exam8%—
SimpleQA Verified41.1%—
Confabulations11.7%—
LMArena Expert1361—

Multimodal Not comparable

o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Vision1168—
GeoBench80%—
VPCT37%—
SpatialViz-Bench41.4%—

Multilingual Not comparable

o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1358—
LMArena Chinese1394—
LMArena French1344—
LMArena German1337—
LMArena Japanese1346—
LMArena Korean1396—
LMArena Russian1356—
LMArena Spanish1345—

Instruction Following Not comparable

o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following81.5%—
LMArena Instruction Following1367—

Long Context Not comparable

o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—
LMArena Longer Query1378—

Writing & Preference o1 leads

o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#181)

Benchmarko1Qwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1366—
LMArena Creative Writing1348—
Short-Story Creative Writing70.2%—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1369—
LiveBench Language65.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o1 better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.2 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

Is o1 or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.6 27B share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper