Skip to main content

Model comparison

o1 vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 1 shared benchmark result across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
47.14/100
Margin
10.1pts
winning →
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: o1 #136 (Estimated); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #72 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. o1 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 1 comparable benchmark result. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 15 results are unique to o1; 1 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Updated July 24, 2026
Shared results
1
o1 only
15
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
1
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if mathematics 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 (Reasoning) is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.27 to 47.14. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning). That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. o1 gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

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 scores and score margins for o1 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Categoryo1ΔQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Matho19.3Margin 2.9Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4
Knowledgeo175.7MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured
Inst. Followingo192.2MarginNo overlapQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not measured

Decisive benchmark drivers

The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.

More
A · o1B · Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 9.310%B 8.481%
    Winner: o1Δ 0.8
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): o1 scored 9.310%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. o1 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.

Metrico1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokenso1$15 input / $60 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondo198 tok/sQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokeno132.29 sQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokenso1200KQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128Ko1 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 62.6%Not comparable
Coding
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA Coding IndexSource 39.7%Not comparable
AA-SciCodeSource 35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-LCRSource 59.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource 0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
MMLUSource 91.8%Not comparable
GPQASource 75.7%Not comparable
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 23.4%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 74.7%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 7.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -10.5%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 34.7%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 69.3%Not comparable
Matho1 wins
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 9.310%8.481%o1 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 0.000%Not comparable
Inst. Following
Benchmarko1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
IFEvalSource 92.2%Not comparable
AA-IFBenchSource 70.3%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, o1 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.27 to 47.14. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 9.310% and 8.481%.

Which is better for math, o1 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

o1 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 9.3 versus 6.4. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.

Related Comparisons

Last updated: July 24, 2026