Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 14 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: o1 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: o1 estimated; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 14 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to o1; 44 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 14
- o1 only
- 3
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 44
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 14 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 55. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 88.2 against 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 75.7% to 86%. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o1.
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 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | o19.3 | Margin→ 78.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Knowledge | o175.7 | Margin← 23.9 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Agentic | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Multimodal | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
| Inst. Following | o192.2 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 75.7%B 86%Winner: Qwen3.6-35B-A3BΔ 10.3GPQA: o1 scored 75.7%; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B scored 86%. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1$15 input / $60 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o198 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o132.29 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 62.6% | 95.3% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 68.7% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 52.6% | Not comparable |
| QwenWebBenchSource | — | 1397 | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 35.6% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 25.9% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 26.9% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 62.8% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 60.1% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 27.4% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1049 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 42.65% | Not comparable |
Coding9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.7% | 41.9% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 12.9% | 34.8% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 35.8% | 35.8% | Tie |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 73.4% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 67.2% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 49.5% | Not comparable |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 51.5% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBenchSource | — | 80.4% | Not comparable |
| NL2RepoSource | — | 29.4% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1 wins12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 91.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 75.7% | 86% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.4% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.7% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.7% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.5% | -21.4% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.7% | 18.9% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 69.3% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins6 benchmarks
Multimodal15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 81.7% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.3% | Not comparable |
| RealWorldQASource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| OmniDocBench 1.5Source | — | 89.9% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 78% | Not comparable |
| SimpleVQASource | — | 58.9% | Not comparable |
| CC-OCRSource | — | 81.9% | Not comparable |
| AI2D_TESTSource | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| RefCOCO (avg)Source | — | 92.0% | Not comparable |
| ODINW13Source | — | 50.8% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (with subtitle)Source | — | 86.6% | Not comparable |
| Video-MME (w/o subtitle)Source | — | 82.5% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 83.7% | Not comparable |
| MLVU (M-Avg)Source | — | 86.2% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 75.0% | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 55. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 75.7% and 86%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 51.8. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, o1 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 9.3. o1 stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
The AI models change fast. We track them for you.
A weekly brief for engineers and researchers covering new models, ranking shifts, and pricing changes.
Free. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.