Model comparison
Celeris-1 vs o3-mini
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: Celeris-1 unranked (Not scored); o3-mini #136 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. Celeris-1 and o3-mini share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to Celeris-1; 10 to o3-mini.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- Celeris-1 only
- 1
- o3-mini only
- 10
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. Celeris-1 makes more sense if you would rather avoid the extra latency and token burn of a reasoning model; o3-mini is the better fit if knowledge is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Celeris-1 and o3-mini finish on the same BenchAlign overall score, so this is less about a single winner and more about where the edge shows up. The BenchAlign headline says tie; the benchmark table is where the real choice happens.
Celeris-1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $6.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens for o3-mini. o3-mini is the reasoning model in the pair, while Celeris-1 is not. That usually helps on harder chain-of-thought-heavy tests, but it can also mean more latency and more token spend in real use. o3-mini gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 8K for Celeris-1.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | Celeris-1 | o3-mini | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | Celeris-1$2 input / $6 output | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | o3-mini has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | Celeris-1Not available | o3-mini160 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | Celeris-1Not available | o3-mini7.12 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | Celeris-18K | o3-mini200K | o3-mini lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
Coding2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo3-mini wins6 benchmarks
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME 2024Source | — | 87.3% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | Celeris-1 | o3-mini | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFEvalSource | — | 93.9% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, Celeris-1 or o3-mini?
Celeris-1 and o3-mini are tied on the BenchAlign overall score, so the right pick depends on which category matters most for your use case.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, Celeris-1 or o3-mini?
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 75.9. Celeris-1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.