# o1 vs Qwen3.6 27B

> Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-6-27b
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 7

## Summary

- They share 7 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 3 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 2 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 47.5 to 34.9.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 35.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
- Qwen3.6 27B is cheaper at $0.60 / $3.60 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.6 27B accepts more context: 262K tokens versus 200K.
- Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.6 | 41.9 |
| Rank | 140 | 112 |
| Context | 200K | 262K |
| Input $/M | $15 | $0.60 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $3.60 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Open |

## Coding

- o1: 45.7 (#64)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| SciCode | — | 37.3% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.3 (#111)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.5 (#103)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 22% |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 78.1% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 34.5% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.92 | 146.47 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 0.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1372 | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 7% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 34.9 (#150)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 35.1% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 91.1% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o1: 41.5 (#101)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 85.9% |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
| LMArena Expert | 1362 | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 33.6 (#87)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.8 (#137)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1359 | — |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | — |
| LMArena French | 1343 | — |
| LMArena German | 1337 | — |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | — |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | — |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | — |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | — |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 75.0 (#82)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1368 | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.6 27B: —

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.8 (#139)
- Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 27B |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | — |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1347 | — |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| EQ-Bench 4 | — | 1026 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1368 | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 40.6 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B 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 Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 38.5 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.6 27B does, with 262K tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.6 27B share?

7 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.