Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct in 5 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 37.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is Fiction.LiveBench: 83.3% for o1 and 55.6% for Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct.
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper at $0.50 / $2 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- o1 accepts more context: 200K tokens versus 131K.
- Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 43.0 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2025-09 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |
| Context window | 200K | 131K |
| Max output | 100K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $2 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 25 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 42.5 (#98)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1440 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
Reasoning Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct leads
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 31.1 (#81)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1428 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 66.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| DTBench | 74.7% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LMCA | 22.3% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 38.8 (#126)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1440 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | — | 46.7% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 41.8 (#106)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1417 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | — | 78.6% |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 9.3% |
| GPQA (HELM) | — | 63% |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct leads
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 52.1 (#93)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1407 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1460 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1413 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1417 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1395 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1364 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1404 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1435 |
Instruction Following o1 leads
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 70.8 (#159)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1389 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| IFEval | — | 81% |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 37.0 (#223)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | 55.6% |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1403 |
Writing & Preference Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct leads
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct: 58.0 (#121)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1417 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1334 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| WildBench | — | 80.7% |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is the stronger model overall, scoring 43.0 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct?
Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $2 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 42.5 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
o1 does, with 200K tokens against 131K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct share?
18 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3-Next 80B-A3B Instruct has 25.