Model comparison
o3-mini vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 8 shared benchmark results across 4 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o3-mini #141 (Supported); Qwen3.5 397B #77 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o3-mini and Qwen3.5 397B share 8 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to o3-mini; 47 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 24, 2026- Shared results
- 8
- o3-mini only
- 2
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 47
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
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.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 8 shared benchmark results across 4 evidence categories; 3 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, 56.26 to 46.59. 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 66.5 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.
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 | o3-mini | Δ | Qwen3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | o3-mini77.2 | Margin← 20.6 | Qwen3.5 397B56.6 |
| Coding | o3-mini49.3 | Margin→ 17.2 | Qwen3.5 397B66.5 |
| Inst. Following | o3-mini93.9 | Margin← 1.3 | Qwen3.5 397B92.6 |
| Agentic | o3-miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B56.5 |
| Reasoning | o3-miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B63.2 |
| Math | o3-miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B90.6 |
| Multilingual | o3-miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B84.7 |
| Multimodal | o3-miniNot measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5 397B79.6 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
SWE-bench Verified
CodingA 49.3%B 76.2%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 26.9SWE-bench Verified: o3-mini scored 49.3%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 76.2%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 77.2%B 88.4%Winner: Qwen3.5 397BΔ 11.2GPQA: o3-mini scored 77.2%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 88.4%. Qwen3.5 397B wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 93.9%B 92.6%Winner: o3-miniΔ 1.3IFEval: o3-mini scored 93.9%; Qwen3.5 397B scored 92.6%. o3-mini wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o3-mini | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o3-mini$1.1 input / $4.4 output | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | Qwen3.5 397B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o3-mini160 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | o3-mini has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o3-mini7.12 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Qwen3.5 397B reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o3-mini200K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | o3-mini lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3-mini | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 28.7% | 95.6% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| 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 |
| 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 |
CodingQwen3.5 397B wins5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledgeo3-mini wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3-mini | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 86.9% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 77.2% | 88.4% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 19.0% | 33.7% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.8% | 89.3% | Qwen3.5 397B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 8.7% | 27.3% | 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-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
Math6 benchmarks
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, o3-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.26 to 46.59. The biggest single separator in this matchup is SWE-bench Verified, where the scores are 49.3% and 76.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o3-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
o3-mini has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 77.2 versus 56.6. Inside this category, AA-HLE is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for coding, o3-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for coding in this comparison, averaging 66.5 versus 49.3. Inside this category, SWE-bench Verified is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, o3-mini or Qwen3.5 397B?
o3-mini has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 93.9 versus 92.6. Inside this category, IFEval is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.