Skip to main content
Radar

Five or fewer confirmed AI changes, with original sources, on mornings when something changed.A free source-linked morning brief.

See the free Radar Brief
OpenAI logo
Model A
o3-mini

OpenAI

48.06/100

Supported · Public rank #153

90% interval 37.758.4

o3-mini vs Qwen3 Max

Updated September 4, 2026. Public scores include evidence status and uncertainty. They are not guarantees for a specific workload.

Alibaba logo
Model B
Qwen3 Max

Alibaba

43.82/100

Estimated · Public rank #173

90% interval 38.149.6

Decision reading

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. Use the documented cost, context, and runtime rows instead.

0 results are shared. Category rows resting on Estimated evidence or different benchmark sets are marked directional and do not name a winner.

Share or export

Share on XLinkedInSocial cardCSVJSON

Which one for your work

Recommendations appear only when a shared evidence basis or an explicit operating constraint supports the call. Secondary and unsupported use cases stay disclosed below the initial list.

  • Long documents

    Prompts that approach the documented context limit

    Qwen3 Max

    Qwen3 Max has the larger documented context window.

    Confidence: documented

Show secondary and unsupported calls
  • Coding work

    Code generation, repair, and software-engineering tasks

    Not enough matched evidence

    Qwen3 Max is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like.

    Confidence: limited

  • Agentic work

    Tool use, computer use, and multi-step task completion

    Not enough matched evidence

    O3-mini and Qwen3 Max are not ranked on the public lane for agentic, so no winner is named for agentic.

    Confidence: limited

  • Chat turn cost

    1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

  • Cache-heavy agent loop cost

    200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    The page does not recommend a cost winner because at least one model cannot fit the stated workload in one request. o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

    Confidence: rate-fallback

  • Repository review cost

    50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

    Not enough matched evidence

    A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.

    Confidence: listed-rates

What is actually comparable

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results present for only one model describe coverage, not superiority.

Shared results
0
o3-mini only
5
Qwen3 Max only
2
Like-for-like categories
0 / 8

2 categories rest on Estimated evidence or different evidence sets. Those rows remain visible for coverage context but do not name a winner.

Category results, on a stated basis

Each row shows the public-lane category score for both models: the BenchAlign lane for agentic, coding, and knowledge, and the weighted public rows elsewhere, with the same rank each model page reports. A row is like-for-like only when both scores rest on Supported evidence or the same weighted set. Directional and not-comparable rows remain visible, but they never receive a winner.

Coding

Directional only
o3-mini
40.6
Supported · #140/183
Qwen3 Max
45.4
Estimated · #107/183
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 1 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Knowledge

Directional only
o3-mini
42.3
Supported · #127/181
Qwen3 Max
43.8
Estimated · #123/181
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 2 vs 0 public rows
Reading
Directional only

Agentic

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
Not ranked
Basis
BenchAlign lane · 0 vs 1 public rows
Reading
Not comparable

Reasoning

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
55.7
Unranked · 2 rankable rows
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Math

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multilingual

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Multimodal

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
Not ranked
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Instruction following

Not comparable
o3-mini
Not ranked
Qwen3 Max
51.7
#78/120
Basis
Provisional lane · 0 vs 0 weighted rows
Reading
Not comparable

Ranks count the models scored in each category’s lane, so the agentic, coding, and knowledge denominators (BenchAlign) differ from the provisional-lane categories. Unranked scores sit on the lane’s scale but never name a winner. Like-for-like rows within 0.5 points read as a practical tie.

Shape of the matched evidence

Only shared public evidence is shown. Sparse evidence stays a ruled list rather than being closed into a radar shape.

A shared-evidence shape is not available.

BenchLM does not draw a radar or infer missing axes when the matched evidence is too sparse.

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes turn per-token rates into comparable decisions. Each scenario states context fit and whether cached input had to fall back to the published list-input rate.

Chat turn

1K fresh input + 500 output tokens

o3-mini
$0.0033
Fits in one request
Qwen3 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Repository review

50K fresh input + 3K output tokens

o3-mini
$0.0682
Fits in one request
Qwen3 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request

Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Cache-heavy agent loop

200K cached + 20K fresh input + 10K output tokens

o3-mini
$0.286
Does not fit in one request
Cached input priced at the published list-input rate
Qwen3 Max
API rate not published
Fits in one request
Cached-input rate unavailable

o3-mini does not fit this workload in one request. o3-mini has no published cached-input rate, so cached tokens use its listed input rate. Qwen3 Max has no comparable published API token rate.

Specification differences

Sourced differences are shown directly. Missing facts stay explicit instead of being inferred from a model name or family.

Context window

Maximum documented context; output-token limits may be lower.

o3-mini

200K

Qwen3 Max

1M

API model ID

o3-mini

Not sourced

Qwen3 Max

Not sourced

Cached-input rate

A missing cached-input rate falls back to the listed input rate only in the stated workload estimate.

o3-mini

Not published

Qwen3 Max

No comparable hosted API rate

Documented inputs

o3-mini

Not sourced

Qwen3 Max

Not sourced

Documented outputs

o3-mini

Not sourced

Qwen3 Max

Not sourced

Provider availability

o3-mini

Not sourced

Qwen3 Max

Not sourced

Reasoning profile

o3-mini

Reasoning

Qwen3 Max

Reasoning

Weight access

o3-mini

Proprietary

Qwen3 Max

Proprietary

License

o3-mini

Proprietary

Qwen3 Max

Proprietary

Release date

o3-mini

2025-01-31

Qwen3 Max

2026-04-20

If you already use one of these models
Deployment change
The models list different providers, so authentication, endpoint behavior, limits, and feature support may change.
Quality signal
The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict.
Workload cost
A complete comparable API-rate estimate is not available for both models.
Context tradeoff
Qwen3 Max has the larger documented window (1M).

Run the same representative tasks against both endpoints before changing production traffic.

Benchmark evidence

The full public result ledger is available for audit without forcing a wide desktop table onto a phone.

Browse raw public benchmark evidence7 rows

Agentic

  • Gert Labs

    o3-mini
    Qwen3 Max43.74%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Coding

  • SWE-bench Verified

    o3-mini49.3%
    Source
    Qwen3 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • Vibe Code Bench

    o3-mini
    Qwen3 Max3.51%
    Source

    Not directly comparable

Knowledge

  • MMLU

    o3-mini86.9%
    Source
    Qwen3 Max

    Not directly comparable

  • GPQA

    o3-mini77.2%
    Source
    Qwen3 Max

    Not directly comparable

Math

  • AIME 2024

    o3-mini87.3%
    Source
    Qwen3 Max

    Not directly comparable

Instruction following

  • IFEval

    o3-mini93.9%
    Source
    Qwen3 Max

    Not directly comparable

Frequently asked questions

Which is better, o3-mini or Qwen3 Max?

The public evidence has no benchmark result shared by both models, so it does not support a quality verdict. The page therefore keeps the decision tied to the specific documented workload.

Which is better for coding, o3-mini or Qwen3 Max?

Qwen3 Max scores higher for coding on the public lane, 45.4 to 40.6. Qwen3 Max is scored on Estimated evidence for coding, so the reading is directional rather than like-for-like. BenchLM does not name a winner for coding from a directional reading; read the shared benchmark rows directly and test the models on the same task set.

Which is better for agentic tasks, o3-mini or Qwen3 Max?

O3-mini and Qwen3 Max are not ranked on the public lane for agentic tasks, so no winner is named for agentic tasks.

Which costs less, o3-mini or Qwen3 Max?

Both models do not have comparable published API token rates, so this page does not name a universal price winner.

Which has the larger context window, o3-mini or Qwen3 Max?

Qwen3 Max has the larger documented context window: 1M, compared with 200K.

Related comparisons

Last updated September 4, 2026

Watch o3-mini vs Qwen3 Max

One weekly email when material rank, price, or benchmark evidence changes make this matchup worth revisiting.

Read a sample issue

Join 2,000+ readers.