Model comparison
MAI-Thinking-1 vs o1
Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored); o1 #129 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MAI-Thinking-1 and o1 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 12 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 15 to o1.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 12
- o1 only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Treat this as a split decision. MAI-Thinking-1 makes more sense if mathematics is the priority or you need the larger 256K context window; o1 is the better fit if instruction following is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
MAI-Thinking-1 and o1 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.
MAI-Thinking-1 gives you the larger context window at 256K, compared with 200K for o1.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | MAI-Thinking-1 | Δ | o1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | MAI-Thinking-189.7 | Margin← 80.4 | o19.3 |
| Inst. Following | MAI-Thinking-185.0 | Margin→ 7.2 | o192.2 |
| Knowledge | MAI-Thinking-172.5 | Margin→ 3.2 | o175.7 |
| Agentic | MAI-Thinking-146.0 | MarginNo overlap | o1Not measured |
| Coding | MAI-Thinking-165.5 | MarginNo overlap | o1Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 84.2%B 75.7%Winner: MAI-Thinking-1Δ 8.5GPQA: MAI-Thinking-1 scored 84.2%; o1 scored 75.7%. MAI-Thinking-1 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MAI-Thinking-1 | o1 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o1$15 input / $60 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o198 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o132.29 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MAI-Thinking-1256K | o1200K | MAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1 wins11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MAI-Thinking-1 | o1 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.2% | 75.7% | MAI-Thinking-1 leads |
| GPQA-DSource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 31% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLUSource | — | 91.8% | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 23.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 74.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 7.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -10.5% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 34.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 69.3% | Not comparable |
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins4 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or o1?
MAI-Thinking-1 and o1 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, MAI-Thinking-1 or o1?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 72.5. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, MAI-Thinking-1 or o1?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 9.3. o1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Which is better for instruction following, MAI-Thinking-1 or o1?
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 85. MAI-Thinking-1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
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.