Model comparison
o1-pro vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o1-pro #148 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #78 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1-pro and Qwen3.5 397B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to o1-pro; 53 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 28, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- o1-pro only
- 0
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 53
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B 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 2 shared benchmark results 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
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.19 to 45. 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 $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. That is roughly 166.7x on output cost alone. o1-pro is the reasoning model in the pair, while Qwen3.5 397B 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 Qwen3.5 397B.
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 | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | o1-pro79.0 | Margin← 22.4 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Agentic | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Coding | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Reasoning | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
| Inst. Following | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 79%B 88.4%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 9.4GPQA: o1-pro scored 79%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1-pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1-pro$150 input / $600 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o1-proNot available | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o1-proNot available | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1-pro200K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | o1-pro lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 52.5% | Not comparable |
| BrowseCompSource | — | 62% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 56.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 51.8% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 68.4% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 43.7% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 37.6% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 36.3% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 46.1% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.2% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 46.76% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 14.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 19.9% | Not comparable |
| APEX-Agents-AASource | — | 15.3% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 23.1% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 962 | Not comparable |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1-pro wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 79% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 18.9% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 70.4% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.9% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o1-pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.19 to 45. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 79% and 88.4%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1-pro or Qwen3.5 397B?
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 56.6. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Know when it’s worth switching models
The model to choose, the cheaper alternative, and the release we would wait on.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.