Model comparison
MAI-Thinking-1 vs o3
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: MAI-Thinking-1 unranked (Not scored); o3 #131 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. MAI-Thinking-1 and o3 share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 13 results are unique to MAI-Thinking-1; 16 to o3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- MAI-Thinking-1 only
- 13
- o3 only
- 16
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 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; o3 is the better fit if its strengths line up with your actual workload.
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
MAI-Thinking-1 and o3 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 o3.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | MAI-Thinking-1 | o3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o3$2 input / $8 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o3118 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | MAI-Thinking-1Not available | o35.38 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | MAI-Thinking-1256K | o3200K | MAI-Thinking-1 lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic2 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
Knowledge10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | MAI-Thinking-1 | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQA-DSource | 84.2% | — | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | 85% | — | Not comparable |
| SimpleQASource | 31% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 30.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 82.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 20.0% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -15.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 38.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
MathMAI-Thinking-1 wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, MAI-Thinking-1 or o3?
MAI-Thinking-1 and o3 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 math, MAI-Thinking-1 or o3?
MAI-Thinking-1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 89.7 versus 14.5. o3 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.