# o1 vs Qwen1.5-7B

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen1-5-7b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 12

## Summary

- They share 12 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-7B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.8 to 29.8.
- Qwen1.5-7B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 30.8 |
| Rank | 140 | 270 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $15 | — |
| Output $/M | $60 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 45.7 (#64)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 31.6 (#271)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1107 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.3 (#111)
- Qwen1.5-7B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.5 (#103)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 19.5 (#237)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1066 |
| 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 | 141.92 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 34.9 (#150)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.0 (#222)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1080 |
| 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 (#101)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.2 (#239)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1055 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| MMLU | — | 62.6% |

## Multimodal

- o1: 33.6 (#87)
- Qwen1.5-7B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.8 (#137)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 28.6 (#266)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1058 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1140 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1006 |
| LMArena French | 1343 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 75.0 (#82)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 54.4 (#276)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1058 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 33.1 (#261)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1090 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.8 (#139)
- Qwen1.5-7B: 29.8 (#288)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen1.5-7B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1084 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1035 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | 1061 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen1.5-7B?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 30.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is o1 or Qwen1.5-7B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 31.6 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen1.5-7B share?

12 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-7B has 13.