# o1 vs Qwen3.8 Max

> Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

- Canonical page: https://noometry.com/compare/o1-vs-qwen3-8-max
- Last updated: 2026-10-10
- Shared benchmarks: 26

## Summary

- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 1 category and Qwen3.8 Max in 9 categories; 10 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.8 Max leads 73.2 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 74.7% for Qwen3.8 Max.
- Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper at $2 / $6 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.8 Max accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

## Snapshot

| | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 56.8 |
| Rank | 143 | 22 |
| Context | 200K | 1M |
| Input $/M | $15 | $2 |
| Output $/M | $60 | $6 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |

## Coding

- o1: 46.1 (#70)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 53.5 (#29)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1502 |
| DeepSWE | — | 57.5% |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1674 |
| FrontierSWE | — | 17.8% |
| SciCode | — | 53.2% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |

## Agentic & Tool Use

- o1: 24.6 (#117)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.4 (#14)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| APEX-Agents | — | 63.3% |
| τ²-bench Banking | — | 55.1% |
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| GDP.pdf | — | 23.2% |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |

## Reasoning

- o1: 27.9 (#111)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 54.4 (#26)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 40% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1496 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 92% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 46.2% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | 156.41 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 88.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 20% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 38% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |

## Math

- o1: 36.1 (#175)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 73.2 (#20)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 74.7% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 100% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1499 |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | — | 46.3% |
| ProofBench | — | 58% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | — |

## Knowledge

- o1: 41.5 (#110)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 61.7 (#27)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 92.7% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | 47.3% |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1507 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |

## Multimodal

- o1: 34.2 (#93)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 37.2 (#75)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | 1314 |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| Furniture Assembly | — | 20% |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |

## Multilingual

- o1: 48.6 (#142)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 56.7 (#18)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1472 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1538 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1503 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1483 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1467 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1461 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1481 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1492 |

## Instruction Following

- o1: 74.8 (#86)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 77.6 (#17)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1479 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |

## Long Context

- o1: 50.3 (#9)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 45.6 (#31)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1489 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |

## Writing & Preference

- o1: 55.6 (#144)
- Qwen3.8 Max: 67.1 (#30)

| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.8 Max |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1483 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1479 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1489 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |

## FAQ

### Is o1 better than Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is the stronger model overall, scoring 56.8 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.

### Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.8 Max?

Qwen3.8 Max is cheaper. It lists at $2 per million input tokens and $6 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.

### Is o1 or Qwen3.8 Max better for coding?

Qwen3.8 Max scores higher on coding benchmarks: 53.5 versus 46.1 in the Noometry coding category.

### Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.8 Max does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

### How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.8 Max share?

26 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.8 Max has 39.