# o1 vs Qwen1.5 4b Chat

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen1-5-4b-chat
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 13

## Summary

- They share 13 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5 4b Chat in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.6 to 23.8.
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 28.8 |
| Rank | 143 | 322 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $15 | — |
| Output $/M | $60 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 29.1 (#308)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 999 |
| 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 4b Chat: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 18.5 (#279)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 976 |
| 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 4b Chat: 30.4 (#234)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1026 |
| 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 4b Chat: 26.7 (#255)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 980 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 24.1 (#290)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 979 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1024 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 902 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 952 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 49.0 (#300)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 978 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 30.1 (#290)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 988 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen1.5 4b Chat: 23.8 (#309)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5 4b Chat |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 997 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 969 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 977 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen1.5 4b Chat?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 28.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is o1 or Qwen1.5 4b Chat better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 29.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen1.5 4b Chat share?

13 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5 4b Chat has 13.