Model comparison
o1-pro vs Qwen3.6-27B
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 #141 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-27B #93 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1-pro and Qwen3.6-27B share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 0 results are unique to o1-pro; 52 to Qwen3.6-27B.
Updated July 21, 2026- Shared results
- 2
- o1-pro only
- 0
- Qwen3.6-27B only
- 52
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-27B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1-pro only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
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
Qwen3.6-27B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 53.82 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 Qwen3.6-27B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.6-27B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o1-pro.
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 | Qwen3.6-27B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | o1-pro79.0 | Margin← 25.7 | Qwen3.6-27B53.3 |
| Agentic | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B59.3 |
| Coding | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B77.5 |
| Math | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B89.2 |
| Multimodal | o1-proNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-27B76.7 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 79%B 87.8%Winner: Qwen3.6-27BΔ 8.8GPQA: o1-pro scored 79%; Qwen3.6-27B scored 87.8%. Qwen3.6-27B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1-pro$150 input / $600 output | Qwen3.6-27B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.6-27B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o1-proNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o1-proNot available | Qwen3.6-27BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1-pro200K | Qwen3.6-27B262K | Qwen3.6-27B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 72.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 53.4% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1487 | Not comparable |
| AndroidWorldSource | — | 70.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.0% | Not comparable |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 94.2% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 32.0% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1140 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 54.84% | Not comparable |
Coding8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 77.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 71.3% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 53.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 59.3% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 83.9% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 36.2% | Not comparable |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 53.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-SciCodeSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1-pro wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | 79% | 87.8% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 18.9% | 37.0% | Qwen3.6-27B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 93.5% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 66% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 91.4% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 24% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 84.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 21.6% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -19.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 19.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 48.3% | Not comparable |
Math5 benchmarks
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 82.9% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.8% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 84.1% | Not comparable |
| DynaMathSource | — | 85.6% | Not comparable |
| MStarSource | — | 81.4% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 56.1% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78.4% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.2% | Not comparable |
| CountBenchSource | — | 97.8% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.5% | Not comparable |
| ERQASource | — | 62.5% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 87.7% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.4% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 94.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 74.6% | Not comparable |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1-pro | Qwen3.6-27B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | — | 67.6% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o1-pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
Qwen3.6-27B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 53.82 to 45.94. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 79% and 87.8%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1-pro or Qwen3.6-27B?
o1-pro has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 79 versus 53.3. Inside this category, Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Self-host vs API cost
Estimates at 50,000 req/day · 1000 tokens/req average.
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.