Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

Start free brief
BenchLM
Model A
MiniCPM5-1B

OpenBMB

11.3/100

Estimated · Public rank #226

90% interval 1.4–21.2

MiniCPM5-1B vs o1

Updated August 22, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Model B
o1

OpenAI

48.1/100

Estimated · Public rank #144

90% interval 36.5–59.6

Decision reading

o1 has the higher public score, 48.06 versus 11.3, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.

1 results are shared. Category rows based on different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    o1

    o1 has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls

  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    No shared weighted benchmark basis supports a winner.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. o1 does not fit this workload in one request. o1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
1
MiniCPM5-1B only
13
o1 only
3
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

1 category uses different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row states whether both averages use the same weighted benchmark set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner in this template.

Instruction following

Directional only
MiniCPM5-1B
58.5
o1
92.2
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not measured
o1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Coding

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not measured
o1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not measured
o1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Knowledge

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
44.0
o1
75.7
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
33.1
o1
9.3
Weighted basis
2 vs 1 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not measured
o1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
MiniCPM5-1B
Not measured
o1
Not measured
Weighted basis
0 vs 0 rows
Reading
Not comparable

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

Too few matched category axes support a radar. The ruled list below shows only shared benchmark results; positions use each benchmark’s normalized display scale when available.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
o1
$0.045
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Fits in one request
o1
$0.93
Fits in one request

MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

MiniCPM5-1B
API rate not published
Does not fit in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable
o1
$3.90
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate

MiniCPM5-1B does not fit this workload in one request. o1 does not fit this workload in one request. o1 has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. MiniCPM5-1B has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

MiniCPM5-1B

131K

o1

200K

API model ID

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

o1

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

MiniCPM5-1B

No comparable hosted API rate

o1

Not published

Documented inputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

o1

Not sourced

Documented outputs

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

o1

Not sourced

Provider availability

MiniCPM5-1B

Not sourced

o1

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

MiniCPM5-1B

Reasoning

o1

Reasoning

Weight access

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

o1

Proprietary

License

MiniCPM5-1B

Open Weight

o1

Proprietary

Release date

MiniCPM5-1B

2026-05-25

o1

2024-12-01

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
o1 has the higher public score, 48.06 versus 11.3, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
o1 has the larger documented window (200K).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence17 rows

Agentic

  • BFCL v4

    MiniCPM5-1B25.1%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • LiveCodeBench Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B22.7%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • LiveCodeBench v6

    MiniCPM5-1B33.5%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

Reasoning

  • BBH

    MiniCPM5-1B71.9%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU-Pro

    MiniCPM5-1B48.9%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU-Redux

    MiniCPM5-1B70.1%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA-D

    MiniCPM5-1B26.3%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • SuperGPQA

    MiniCPM5-1B23.1%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MMLU

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    o191.8%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    o175.7%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2025

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • AIME26

    MiniCPM5-1B40.4%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • HMMT Feb 2026

    MiniCPM5-1B25.8%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • MATH-500

    MiniCPM5-1B91.6%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    MiniCPM5-1B—
    o19.310%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFBench

    MiniCPM5-1B46.7%
    Source
    o1—

    Not directly comparable

  • IFEval

    MiniCPM5-1B80.4%
    Source
    o192.2%
    Source

    o1 leads this result

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, MiniCPM5-1B or o1?

o1 has the higher public score, 48.06 versus 11.3, and the 90% score intervals do not overlap. That is the clearest overall quality signal in the current public data.

Which is better for coding, MiniCPM5-1B or o1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted coding basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a coding winner.

Which is better for agentic tasks, MiniCPM5-1B or o1?

The published evidence does not provide a shared weighted agentic tasks basis for both models, so BenchLM does not name a agentic tasks winner.

Which costs less, MiniCPM5-1B or o1?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, MiniCPM5-1B or o1?

o1 has the larger documented context window: 200K, compared with 131K.

Related comparisons

Compare API pricing Read the methodology Open the model selector

Last updated August 22, 2026

Watch MiniCPM5-1B vs o1

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.