# o1 vs Qwen3.5 397B-A17B

> Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.7 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-5-397b-a17b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 25

## Summary

- They share 25 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B in 8 categories; 9 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5 397B-A17B leads 53.3 to 41.5.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 31.2% for Qwen3.5 397B-A17B.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 45.7 |
| Rank | 140 | 60 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 45.7 (#64)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 41.7 (#108)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1464 |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1400 |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.3 (#111)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.2 (#51)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 24.9% |
| τ²-bench Airline | — | 81.5% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 9.8% |
| τ²-bench Retail | — | 84.4% |
| τ²-bench Telecom | — | 97.8% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.5 (#103)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 33.6 (#62)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 13% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | 1448 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 87.5% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 37.9% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.92 | 146.64 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| Kagi LLM Benchmark | — | 73.7% |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 58.9% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 65.1% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 18% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 34.9 (#150)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.9 (#64)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 31.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 88.9% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1455 |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o1: 41.5 (#101)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 53.3 (#53)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 86.4% |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | 1461 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 33.6 (#87)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 40.0 (#42)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | 1262 |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.8 (#137)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 54.0 (#56)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | 1431 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1501 |
| LMArena French | 1343 | 1461 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1447 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1427 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1382 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1429 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1443 |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 75.0 (#82)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 75.2 (#73)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | 1424 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 44.1 (#71)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1442 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.8 (#139)
- Qwen3.5 397B-A17B: 62.5 (#74)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5 397B-A17B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1438 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | 1401 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | 1447 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench Creative Writing | — | 1478 |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is the stronger model overall, scoring 45.7 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B is cheaper. It lists at $0.60 per million input tokens and $3.60 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is o1 or Qwen3.5 397B-A17B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 41.7 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5 397B-A17B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B share?

25 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5 397B-A17B has 36.