Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.6 35B-A3B
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 8 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 8 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B in 2 categories; 4 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads 51.4 to 41.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 73.3% for o1 and 86.7% for Qwen3.6 35B-A3B.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper at $0.25 / $1.49 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 37.2 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-04-01 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.25 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $1.49 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 14 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 45.7 (#64), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 36.7 (#190)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 47.6% | 34.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 35.8% |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use o1 leads
o1: 24.3 (#111), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 21.9 (#126)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench | — | 23% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning Too close to call
o1: 27.5 (#103), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 27.2 (#112)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 26% |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 73.9% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 29.7% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.92 | 143.92 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 41.6% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.3% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 22% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| Surface Evolver Bench | — | 44.4% |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
o1: 34.9 (#150), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 37.9 (#90)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 20.4% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 86.7% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 35B-A3B leads
o1: 41.5 (#101), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: 51.4 (#63)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 84.8% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 33.6 (#87), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Not comparable
o1: 48.8 (#137), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | — |
| LMArena French | 1343 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |
Instruction Following Not comparable
o1: 75.0 (#82), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | — |
Long Context Not comparable
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | — |
Writing & Preference Not comparable
o1: 55.8 (#139), Qwen3.6 35B-A3B: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 37.2 on the Noometry Index. Qwen3.6 35B-A3B costs 47× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o1's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B is cheaper. It lists at $0.25 per million input tokens and $1.49 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.6 35B-A3B better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 36.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 35B-A3B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B share?
8 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 35B-A3B has 14.