Model comparison
o4-mini vs Qwen3.5-Flash
o4-mini and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.6 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Last verified . 30 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 30 benchmarks with published results for both. o4-mini scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5-Flash in 3 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in reasoning, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 33.7 to 24.6.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 36.1% for o4-mini and 18.2% for Qwen3.5-Flash.
- Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $1.10 / $4.40 for o4-mini.
- Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 41.6 | 42.5 |
| Released | 2025-04-16 | 2026-02-23 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $1.10 | $0.10 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $4.40 | $0.40 |
| Results tracked | 60 | 32 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o4-mini leads
o4-mini: 40.9 (#127), Qwen3.5-Flash: 34.2 (#242)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1368 | 1412 |
| ALE-Bench | 826.17 | 221.8 |
| SWE-bench Verified (bash only) | 45% | — |
| Aider Polyglot | 72% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1244 |
| GSO | 3.6% | — |
| WeirdML | 52.6% | — |
| CadEval | 62% | — |
| AlgoTune | 1.72 | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o4-mini: 32.6 (#61), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Berkeley Function Calling Leaderboard | 53.2% | — |
| GDPval | 25.3% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 63.9% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 462.69 |
Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o4-mini: 24.6 (#162), Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.7 (#72)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 26% | 21% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1351 | 1403 |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | 5% | 20% |
| DTBench | 77.6% | 82.9% |
| LMCA | 26.5% | 29.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 145.64 | 143.98 |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 6.1% | — |
| SimpleBench | 38.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | 67.6% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 58.7% | — |
| CritPt | 0.6% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 9.2% | — |
| ForecastBench | 61.8 | — |
Math o4-mini leads
o4-mini: 40.8 (#89), Qwen3.5-Flash: 37.4 (#158)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 36.1% | 18.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 81.7% | 84.4% |
| LMArena Math | 1389 | 1407 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 24.8% | 6.2% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | 6.3% | 0% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | 4.9% | — |
| Omni-MATH | 72% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 97.8% | — |
Knowledge Too close to call
o4-mini: 43.6 (#91), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#93)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 79.6% | 82.3% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 19.6% | 20.3% |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | 18.6% | 10.5% |
| LMArena Expert | 1343 | 1407 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 18.1% | — |
| MMLU-Pro | 82% | — |
| Confabulations | 15.8% | — |
| GPQA (HELM) | 73.5% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o4-mini: 40.2 (#49), Qwen3.5-Flash: —
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1194 | — |
| GeoBench | 64% | — |
| VPCT | 57.5% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o4-mini: 47.0 (#154), Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.5 (#121)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1337 | 1385 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1354 | 1446 |
| LMArena French | 1364 | 1412 |
| LMArena German | 1336 | 1390 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1308 | 1368 |
| LMArena Korean | 1312 | 1344 |
| LMArena Russian | 1334 | 1379 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1347 | 1400 |
Instruction Following o4-mini leads
o4-mini: 75.2 (#68), Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.6 (#139)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1321 | 1374 |
| IFEval | 92.8% | — |
Long Context o4-mini leads
o4-mini: 45.5 (#33), Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#124)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1315 | 1392 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 77.8% | — |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.5-Flash leads
o4-mini: 54.0 (#152), Qwen3.5-Flash: 57.9 (#122)
| Benchmark | o4-mini | Qwen3.5-Flash |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1353 | 1397 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1294 | 1343 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1350 | 1393 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 75% | — |
| WildBench | 85.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o4-mini better than Qwen3.5-Flash?
o4-mini and Qwen3.5-Flash score almost the same on the Noometry Index (41.6 vs 42.5), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.
Which is cheaper, o4-mini or Qwen3.5-Flash?
Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o4-mini lists at $1.10 and $4.40.
Is o4-mini or Qwen3.5-Flash better for coding?
o4-mini scores higher on coding benchmarks: 40.9 versus 34.2 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o4-mini and Qwen3.5-Flash share?
30 benchmarks have published results for both models. o4-mini has 60 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.