Model comparison
o3 vs Qwen Plus
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Last verified . 20 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. o3 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen Plus in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where o3 leads 54.6 to 27.4.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 84.4% for o3 and 17.8% for Qwen Plus.
- Qwen Plus is cheaper at $0.40 / $1.20 per million input/output tokens, against $2 / $8 for o3.
- Qwen Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o3 | Qwen Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 47.5 | 37.1 |
| Released | 2025-04-16 | 2024-01-25 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 100K | 33K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $2 | $0.40 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $8 | $1.20 |
| Results tracked | 63 | 20 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o3 leads
o3: 46.8 (#64), Qwen Plus: 38.9 (#167)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1408 | 1328 |
| SWE-bench Verified | 62.3% | — |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 58.4% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 81.3% | — |
| GSO | 8.8% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.4% | — |
| CadEval | 74% | — |
| ALE-Bench | 933.55 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o3: 34.5 (#44), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 63% | — |
| GDPval | 30.8% | — |
| DeepResearch Bench | 45.2% | — |
| OSWorld | 23% | — |
| LMArena Search | 1144 | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 65.4% | — |
Reasoning o3 leads
o3: 32.0 (#78), Qwen Plus: 28.4 (#107)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.6% | 63.3% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1402 | 1317 |
| DTBench | 84.8% | 81.1% |
| LMCA | 39.7% | 24% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 6.5% | — |
| SimpleBench | 53.1% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 60.8% | — |
| CritPt | 1.4% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 38% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 13.1% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 29% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 146.86 | — |
| ForecastBench | 62.5 | — |
Math o3 leads
o3: 50.2 (#58), Qwen Plus: 23.3 (#271)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 84.4% | 17.8% |
| LMArena Math | 1426 | 1326 |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.8% | 65.3% |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 18.7% | 1.7% |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 33.3% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 71.4% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 2.1% | — |
Knowledge o3 leads
o3: 54.6 (#52), Qwen Plus: 27.4 (#251)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 81.8% | 48.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1402 | 1328 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 20.3% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 49.4% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 85.9% | — |
| Confabulations | 14.4% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 75.3% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o3: 41.4 (#36), Qwen Plus: —
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1214 | — |
| GeoBench | 74% | — |
| VPCT | 52% | — |
Multilingual o3 leads
o3: 51.7 (#105), Qwen Plus: 45.1 (#175)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1401 | 1310 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1437 | 1347 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1403 | 1251 |
| LMArena Russian | 1406 | 1323 |
| LMArena French | 1430 | — |
| LMArena German | 1420 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1370 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1395 | — |
Instruction Following o3 leads
o3: 72.8 (#127), Qwen Plus: 68.8 (#181)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1303 |
| IFEval | 86.9% | — |
Long Context o3 leads
o3: 53.3 (#6), Qwen Plus: 40.3 (#158)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1372 | 1324 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 88.9% | — |
| CL-bench | 17.8% | — |
Writing & Preference o3 leads
o3: 63.5 (#64), Qwen Plus: 52.2 (#176)
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1410 | 1326 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1359 | 1293 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1405 | 1336 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 83.9% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | 1676 | — |
| WildBench | 86.1% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o3 better than Qwen Plus?
o3 is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 37.1 on the Noometry Index. Qwen Plus costs 5.8× less per token, which makes it the better buy when o3's lead doesn't matter for your workload.
Which is cheaper, o3 or Qwen Plus?
Qwen Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $1.20 per million output tokens; o3 lists at $2 and $8.
Is o3 or Qwen Plus better for coding?
o3 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.8 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o3 and Qwen Plus share?
20 benchmarks have published results for both models. o3 has 63 scored results on Noometry and Qwen Plus has 20.