Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.6 Max Preview
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 23 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 23 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.6 Max Preview in 7 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads 52.2 to 34.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is SimpleBench: 41.7% for o1 and 63% for Qwen3.6 Max Preview.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper at $1.30 / $7.80 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.6 Max Preview accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 51.1 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-04-20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 262K |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $1.30 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $7.80 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 29 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 45.7 (#64), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 48.6 (#50)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1472 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 76.7% |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1482 |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.3 (#111), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 4,254 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 27.5 (#103), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 40.8 (#47)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | 63% |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 20% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1457 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 87.2% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 42.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.92 | 149.27 |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 74.1% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 19% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 34.9 (#150), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 52.2 (#40)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 91.1% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1465 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | 23.1% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 4.2% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 41.5 (#101), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 57.6 (#35)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 87.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | 52% |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1476 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 33.6 (#87), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 48.8 (#137), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 54.3 (#46)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1436 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1487 |
| LMArena French | 1343 | 1449 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1444 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1452 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
Instruction Following Too close to call
o1: 75.0 (#82), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 75.8 (#51)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1437 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 44.6 (#59)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1457 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Max Preview leads
o1: 55.8 (#139), Qwen3.6 Max Preview: 64.0 (#58)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Max Preview |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1447 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1435 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | 1456 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is the stronger model overall, scoring 51.1 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview is cheaper. It lists at $1.30 per million input tokens and $7.80 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.6 Max Preview better for coding?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview scores higher on coding benchmarks: 48.6 versus 45.7 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Max Preview does, with 262K tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.6 Max Preview share?
23 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Max Preview has 29.