# o1 vs Qwen2.5 Plus 1127

> o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen2-5-plus
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 14

## Summary

- They share 14 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 7 categories and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 in 1 category; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 39.2.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 38.8 |
| Rank | 143 | 181 |
| Context | 200K | — |
| Input $/M | $15 | — |
| Output $/M | $60 | — |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 38.5 (#175)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1314 |
| 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)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 25.9 (#141)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1299 |
| 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)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 36.1 (#174)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1298 |
| 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)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 35.5 (#183)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1289 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 41.9 (#201)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1265 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1314 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1231 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1207 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1271 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 67.2 (#199)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1275 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 39.2 (#184)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1292 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen2.5 Plus 1127: 49.4 (#192)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1299 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1262 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1299 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen2.5 Plus 1127?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.9 to 38.8 on the Noometry Index.

### Is o1 or Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 share?

14 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen2.5 Plus 1127 has 14.