Model comparison
o1-pro vs Qwen3 235B 2507
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: o1-pro #141 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1-pro and Qwen3 235B 2507 share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to o1-pro; 3 to Qwen3 235B 2507.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 1
- o1-pro only
- 1
- Qwen3 235B 2507 only
- 3
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 1 shared benchmark result across 1 evidence category; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3 235B 2507 is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.02 to 45.94. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
o1-pro is also the more expensive model on tokens at $150.00 input / $600.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. o1-pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3 235B 2507 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. o1-pro gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507.
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 | o1-pro | Δ | Qwen3 235B 2507 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | o1-pro79.0 | Margin← 0.1 | Qwen3 235B 250778.9 |
| Multilingual | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3 235B 250779.4 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 79%B 77.5%Winner: o1-proΔ 1.5GPQA: o1-pro scored 79%; Qwen3 235B 2507 scored 77.5%. o1-pro wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1-pro | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1-pro$150 input / $600 output | Qwen3 235B 2507$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3 235B 2507 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o1-proNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o1-proNot available | Qwen3 235B 2507Not available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1-pro200K | Qwen3 235B 2507128K | o1-pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Knowledgeo1-pro wins4 benchmarks
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3 235B 2507 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 79.4% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o1-pro or Qwen3 235B 2507?
Qwen3 235B 2507 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.02 to 45.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 79% and 77.5%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1-pro or Qwen3 235B 2507?
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 78.9. Inside this category, GPQA is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
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.