# o1 vs Qwen3.5 27B

> o1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-5-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 21

## Summary

- They share 21 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 5 categories and Qwen3.5 27B in 4 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in coding, where o1 leads 46.1 to 38.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is LMCA: 22.3% for o1 and 34% for Qwen3.5 27B.
- Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper at $0.30 / $2.40 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.5 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 143 | 127 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.30 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $2.40 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.9 (#168)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| WeirdML | 47.6% | 39.5% |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1427 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1358 |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 349.45 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.6 (#117)
- Qwen3.5 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 201.98 |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 27.5 (#117)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1414 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 82.4% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 34% |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 47.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 45.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 36.1 (#175)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 38.8 (#127)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1429 |
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | — |
| MathArena Final-Answer Competitions | — | 56.7% |
| 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 27B: 38.0 (#150)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1428 |
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | — |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| Vectara Hallucination Rate | — | 12.1% |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 39.4 (#59)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | 1241 |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 50.8 (#115)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1390 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1478 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1410 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1393 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1345 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1358 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1390 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1407 |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 73.5 (#119)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1393 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 43.1 (#106)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1413 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen3.5 27B: 59.3 (#111)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1409 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1362 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1410 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.5 27B?

o1 and Qwen3.5 27B score almost the same on the Noometry Index (40.9 vs 41.9), so choose on price, context window or the category you care about most.

### Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5 27B?

Qwen3.5 27B is cheaper. It lists at $0.30 per million input tokens and $2.40 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is o1 or Qwen3.5 27B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 38.9 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5 27B share?

21 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 27B has 28.