# o1 vs Qwen3.5 122B-A10B

> Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-5-122b-a10b
- Last updated: 2026-10-12
- Shared benchmarks: 20

## Summary

- They share 20 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B in 4 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in long context, where o1 leads 50.3 to 43.0.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 22.3% for o1 and 32.2% for Qwen3.5 122B-A10B.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper at $0.40 / $3.20 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 42.1 |
| Rank | 143 | 119 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.40 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $3.20 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#162)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1436 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1360 |
| SciCode | — | 35.6% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.6 (#117)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 27.2 (#123)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1421 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 84.3% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 32.2% |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 51.7% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 51.2% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 17% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 36.1 (#175)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.1 (#112)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1432 |
| 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)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 38.8 (#142)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1432 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 11.2% |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 39.6 (#57)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | 1245 |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 51.6 (#107)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1400 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1462 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1442 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1426 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1367 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1352 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1400 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1424 |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 73.8 (#115)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1399 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 43.0 (#109)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1410 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen3.5 122B-A10B: 60.0 (#105)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 122B-A10B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1417 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1368 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1416 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.1 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B is cheaper. It lists at $0.40 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is o1 or Qwen3.5 122B-A10B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 39.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 122B-A10B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B share?

20 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 122B-A10B has 27.