Noometry

Model comparison

o4-mini vs Qwen1.5-72B

o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 18 shared benchmarks.

o4-mini OpenAI

41.6

Rank #132 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-72B Alibaba (Qwen)

30.8

Rank #285 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 18 benchmarks with published results for both. o4-mini scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-72B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where o4-mini leads 43.6 to 11.5.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is GPQA Diamond: 79.6% for o4-mini and 28.8% for Qwen1.5-72B.
  • Qwen1.5-72B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o4-miniQwen1.5-72B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index41.630.8
Released2025-04-162024-02-04
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$1.10—
Output $ / M tokens$4.40—
Results tracked6022

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

Category by category

Coding o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 40.9 (#127), Qwen1.5-72B: 31.9 (#277)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Coding13681165
SWE-bench Verified (bash only)45%—
Aider Polyglot72%—
GSO3.6%—
WeirdML52.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—33.2%
BigCodeBench Complete—40.3%
CadEval62%—
ALE-Bench826.17—
AlgoTune1.72—
HumanEval+—59.1%
MBPP+—61.6%

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o4-mini: 32.6 (#61), Qwen1.5-72B: —

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard53.2%—
GDPval25.3%—
METR Time Horizons63.9%—

Reasoning o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 24.6 (#162), Qwen1.5-72B: 22.2 (#203)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Hard Prompts13511148
ARC-AGI-26.1%—
SimpleBench38.7%—
Kagi LLM Benchmark67.6%—
ARC-AGI-158.7%—
CritPt0.6%—
Chess Puzzles26%—
EnigmaEval9.2%—
Mystery Game Puzzles5%—
DTBench77.6%—
LMCA26.5%—
Epoch Capabilities Index145.64—
ForecastBench61.8—

Math o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 40.8 (#89), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#205)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Math13891164
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)36.1%—
FrontierMath Tier 44.9%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202581.7%—
Omni-MATH72%—
MATH Level 597.8%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)24.8%—
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)6.3%—

Knowledge o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 43.6 (#91), Qwen1.5-72B: 11.5 (#300)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
GPQA Diamond79.6%28.8%
LMArena Expert13431136
Humanity's Last Exam18.1%—
SimpleQA Verified19.6%—
MMLU-Pro82%—
Confabulations15.8%—
Vectara Hallucination Rate18.6%—
GPQA (HELM)73.5%—

Multimodal Not comparable

o4-mini: 40.2 (#49), Qwen1.5-72B: —

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Vision1194—
GeoBench64%—
VPCT57.5%—

Multilingual o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 47.0 (#154), Qwen1.5-72B: 33.2 (#253)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Non-English13371135
LMArena Chinese13541186
LMArena French13641159
LMArena German13361084
LMArena Japanese13081061
LMArena Korean13121050
LMArena Russian13341104
LMArena Spanish13471110

Instruction Following o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 75.2 (#68), Qwen1.5-72B: 59.3 (#256)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Instruction Following13211141
IFEval92.8%—

Long Context o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 45.5 (#33), Qwen1.5-72B: 35.1 (#243)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Longer Query13151157
Fiction.LiveBench77.8%—

Writing & Preference o4-mini leads

o4-mini: 54.0 (#152), Qwen1.5-72B: 37.3 (#258)

Benchmarko4-miniQwen1.5-72B
LMArena Text13531166
LMArena Creative Writing12941137
LMArena Multi-Turn13501160
Short-Story Creative Writing75%—
WildBench85.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o4-mini better than Qwen1.5-72B?

o4-mini is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

Is o4-mini or Qwen1.5-72B better for coding?

o4-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 31.9 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o4-mini and Qwen1.5-72B share?

18 benchmarks have published results for both models. o4-mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-72B has 22.

Related comparisons

Go deeper