# o1 vs Qwen1.5-14B

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen1-5-14b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 16

## Summary

- They share 16 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-14B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.6 to 33.6.
- Qwen1.5-14B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 32.7 |
| Rank | 143 | 253 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $15 | — |
| Output $/M | $60 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.1 (#263)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1138 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.6 (#117)
- Qwen1.5-14B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 21.4 (#223)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1113 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| 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

- o1: 36.1 (#175)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 32.4 (#215)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1125 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | — |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o1: 41.5 (#110)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 29.8 (#232)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1094 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| MMLU | — | 68.6% |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen1.5-14B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 30.7 (#262)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1095 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1147 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1116 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1043 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1019 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1046 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1085 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 56.8 (#271)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1102 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.7 (#257)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1113 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen1.5-14B: 33.6 (#276)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-14B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1128 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1091 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1110 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen1.5-14B?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 32.7 on the Noometry Index.

### Is o1 or Qwen1.5-14B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 33.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen1.5-14B share?

16 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-14B has 17.