Chat turn cost
1K fresh input + 500 output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-rates
o1-mini vs Qwen3.5 397B
Updated October 14, 2026. We do not rank this pair: at least one has no public score. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty.
Both of these models will change. Get the price, version and retirement notices for the pair, each with its source. Follow model changes
Share or export
Decision reading
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. 1 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.
- Shared results
- 1
- o1-mini only
- 6
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 61
- Like-for-like categories
- 0 / 8
Estimated: Qwen3.5 397B. Conditional ranges do not establish rank confidence.How the comparison works
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.
Show secondary and unsupported calls
Repository review cost
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
Qwen3.5 397B
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower estimated token cost for this stated workload. Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Confidence: listed-ratesCoding work
Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks
Not enough matched evidence
O1-mini and Qwen3.5 397B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Confidence: limitedAgentic work
Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion
Not enough matched evidence
O1-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.
Confidence: limitedLong documents
Prompts that approach the documented context limit
No clear pick
The documented context windows are equal.
Confidence: documentedCache-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. o1-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Confidence: rate-fallback
Which one for a specific job
Choose a job from the LLM Selector's task catalog to see the category row it rests on, under the same basis rules as the table below. A directional row stays directional; choosing a job never creates a winner.
The same task catalog as the LLM Selector. Each job names the evidence surface it rests on; nothing here adds a new score.
—o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B
Not comparable · BenchAlign v5.8
The coding row is not comparable on the public lane: at least one model is not measured or not ranked there.
Coding scores combine specific tasks and setups. Match the editor, harness, and effort to your workflow.
Same basis rules as the category table below
What is actually comparable
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.
6 o1-mini only
1 Shared
61 Qwen3.5 397B only
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.
GPQAKnowledge
Normalized gap 28.4o1-mini:60%Qwen3.5 397B:88.4%
Bars run 0–100 on each benchmark’s normalized display scale
Category results, on a stated basis
Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign v5.8 lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.
Agentic
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 44.3
- Estimated · #55/124
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 14 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Coding
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- Not ranked
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Reasoning
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 74.9
- Unranked · 2 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multimodal
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 73.6
- #29/54
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Knowledge
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 54.1
- Estimated · #64/181
- Basis
- BenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Multilingual
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 93.8
- #5/17
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Instruction following
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 79.9
- #56/128
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
Math
Not comparable- o1-mini
- Not ranked
- Qwen3.5 397B
- 81.7
- Unranked · 5 rankable rows
- Basis
- Provisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows
- Reading
- Not comparable
| Category | o1-mini | Qwen3.5 397B | Basis | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agentic | Not ranked | 44.3Estimated · #55/124 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 0 vs 14 public rows | Not comparable |
| Coding | Not ranked | Not ranked | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 1 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Reasoning | Not ranked | 74.9Unranked · 2 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Multimodal | Not ranked | 73.6#29/54 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Knowledge | Not ranked | 54.1Estimated · #64/181 | Not comparableBenchAlign v5.8 lane · 3 vs 6 public rows | Not comparable |
| Multilingual | Not ranked | 93.8#5/17 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Instruction following | Not ranked | 79.9#56/128 | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 1 weighted rows | Not comparable |
| Math | Not ranked | 81.7Unranked · 5 rankable rows | Not comparableProvisional lane · 0 vs 2 weighted rows | Not comparable |
Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign v5.8) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the provisional lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.
Bars run 0–100Methodology
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
- o1-mini
- $0.0033
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0024
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Repository review
50K fresh input + 3K output tokens
- o1-mini
- $0.0682
- Fits in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.0408
- Fits in one request
Qwen3.5 397B has the lower modeled cost
Costs use the listed standard API rates.
Cache-heavy agent loop
200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens
- o1-mini
- $0.176
- Does not fit in one request
- Qwen3.5 397B
- $0.168
- Does not fit in one request
- Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
o1-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Cached input falls back to the list input rate only where a cached rate is unpublished
Specification differences
Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.
Specificationo1-miniQwen3.5 397B
Context window
Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.
o1-mini
Qwen3.5 397B
128K
API model ID
o1-mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Cached-input rate
A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.
o1-mini
$0.55 per 1M cached input tokens
OpenAI o1-mini model documentationQwen3.5 397B
Not published
Documented inputs
o1-mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Documented outputs
o1-mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Provider availability
o1-mini
Not sourced
Qwen3.5 397B
Not sourced
Reasoning profile
o1-mini
Reasoning
Qwen3.5 397B
Non-Reasoning
Weight access
o1-mini
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
License
o1-mini
Proprietary
Qwen3.5 397B
Open Weight
Release date
o1-mini
2024-09-12
Qwen3.5 397B
2026-02-16
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
- At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner.
- Workload cost
- Repository review: $0.0682 vs $0.0408. Cache-heavy agent loop: $0.176 vs $0.168.
- Context tradeoff
- Both models list 128K.
Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.
Questions
Which is better, o1-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
At least one model is not scored in the current public ranking lane, so the page does not name an overall quality winner. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.
Which is better for coding, o1-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
O1-mini and Qwen3.5 397B are not ranked on the public lane for coding, so no winner is named for coding.
Which is better for agentic tasks, o1-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
O1-mini is not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.
Which costs less, o1-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
For the stated presets, chat costs $0.0033 on o1-mini and $0.0024 on Qwen3.5 397B; repository review costs $0.0682 and $0.0408; the cache-heavy agent loop costs $0.176 and $0.168. o1-mini does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B does not fit this workload in one request. Qwen3.5 397B has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate.
Which has the larger context window, o1-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
Both models list the same context window, 128K.
Benchmark evidence
The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.
Browse raw public benchmark evidence68 rows
Agentic
Terminal-Bench 2.0
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
BrowseComp
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B69%SourceNot directly comparable
OSWorld-Verified
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B62.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Claw-Eval
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B56.8%SourceNot directly comparable
QwenClawBench
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B51.8%SourceNot directly comparable
τ³-bench results
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B68.4%SourceNot directly comparable
VITA-Bench
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B43.7%SourceNot directly comparable
DeepPlanning
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B37.6%SourceNot directly comparable
Toolathlon
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B36.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP Atlas
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B46.1%SourceNot directly comparable
MCP-Tasks
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B74.2%SourceNot directly comparable
WideResearch
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B74.0%SourceNot directly comparable
Gert Labs
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B46.76%SourceNot directly comparable
ResearchClawBench
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B14.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Coding
HumanEval
o1-mini92.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SWE-bench Verified
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B76.2%SourceNot directly comparable
LiveCodeBench v6
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B83.6%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE-bench Pro
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B50.9%SourceNot directly comparable
SWE Multilingual
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B69.3%SourceNot directly comparable
NL2Repo
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B32.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Terminal-Bench 2.0
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B52.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Reasoning
Multimodal
MMMU
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B85.0%SourceNot directly comparable
MMMU-Pro
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B79%SourceNot directly comparable
RealWorldQA
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B83.9%SourceNot directly comparable
OmniDocBench 1.5
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B90.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (with subtitle)
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B87.5%SourceNot directly comparable
Video-MME (w/o subtitle)
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B83.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MathVision
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B88.6%SourceNot directly comparable
We-Math
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
DynaMath
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B86.3%SourceNot directly comparable
SimpleVQA
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B67.1%SourceNot directly comparable
CharXiv
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B80.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLongBench-Doc
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B61.5%SourceNot directly comparable
CC-OCR
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B82.0%SourceNot directly comparable
AI2D_TEST
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B93.9%SourceNot directly comparable
CountBench
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B97.2%SourceNot directly comparable
RefCOCO (avg)
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B92.3%SourceNot directly comparable
ODINW13
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B47.0%SourceNot directly comparable
ERQA
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B67.5%SourceNot directly comparable
VideoMMMU
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
MLVU (M-Avg)
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B86.7%SourceNot directly comparable
ScreenSpot Pro
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B65.6%SourceNot directly comparable
V*
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B95.8%SourceNot directly comparable
Knowledge
MMLU
o1-mini85.2%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
GPQA
o1-mini60%SourceQwen3.5 397B88.4%SourceQwen3.5 397B leads this result
SimpleQA
o1-mini7.6%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
SuperGPQA
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B70.4%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Pro
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B87.8%SourceNot directly comparable
MMLU-Redux
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B94.9%SourceNot directly comparable
C-Eval
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B93%SourceNot directly comparable
HLE
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B28.7%SourceNot directly comparable
Multilingual
MGSM
o1-mini89.9%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
MMLU-ProX
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B84.7%SourceNot directly comparable
NOVA-63
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B59.1%SourceNot directly comparable
INCLUDE
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B85.6%SourceNot directly comparable
PolyMath
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B73.3%SourceNot directly comparable
MAXIFE
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B88.2%SourceNot directly comparable
Instruction following
Math
MATH-500
o1-mini90%SourceQwen3.5 397B—Not directly comparable
AIME26
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B93.3%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2025
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B94.8%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Nov 2025
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B92.7%SourceNot directly comparable
HMMT Feb 2026
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B87.9%SourceNot directly comparable
MMAnswerBench
o1-mini—Qwen3.5 397B80.9%SourceNot directly comparable
68 public results · 1 shared
Watch o1-mini vs Qwen3.5 397B
One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.
Read a sample issueJoin 5,500+ readers.
Last updated October 14, 2026