o3-mini vs Qwen3.5 397B

Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3-mini only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority or you need the larger 200K context window.

Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 64 to 56. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

Qwen3.5 397B's sharpest advantage is in coding, where it averages 60.3 against 49.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is SWE-bench Verified, 49.3% to 76.2%. o3-mini does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.

o3-mini is also the more expensive model on tokens at $1.10 input / $4.40 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.60 input / $3.60 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5 397B. o3-mini 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. o3-mini gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.