Skip to main content

Model comparison

o3 vs Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 2 shared benchmark results across 1 category. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

OpenAI
47.89/100
Margin
10.1pts
winning →
1 category wins0 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: o3 #131 (Supported); Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) #66 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. o3 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) share 2 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 14 results are unique to o3; 0 to Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning).

Updated July 22, 2026
Shared results
2
o3 only
14
Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) only
0
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3 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 2 shared benchmark results 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, 58.01 to 47.89. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.

o3 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $2.00 input / $8.00 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. o3 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 o3 and Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Categoryo3ΔQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
Matho314.5Margin 8.1Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)6.4

Decisive benchmark drivers

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

More
A · o3B · Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)
  1. FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 18.685%B 8.481%
    Winner: o3Δ 10.2
    FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): o3 scored 18.685%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 8.481%. o3 wins this benchmark.
  2. FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)

    Math
    Source ↗
    A 2.083%B 0.000%
    Winner: o3Δ 2.1
    FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4): o3 scored 2.083%; Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) scored 0.000%. o3 wins this benchmark.

Operational comparison

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

Metrico3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Comparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokenso3$2 input / $8 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)$0 input / $0 outputQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) has the lower combined listed price.
Generation speedtokens per secondo3118 tok/sQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokeno35.38 sQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Not availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokenso3200KQwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)128Ko3 lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
τ²-bench resultsSource 80.7%Not comparable
Coding
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-SciCodeSource 41.0%Not comparable
Reasoning
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-LCRSource 69.3%Not comparable
CritPtSource 1.1%Not comparable
Knowledge
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource 30.4%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource 82.7%Not comparable
AA-HLESource 20.0%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource -15.3%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource 38.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource 87.1%Not comparable
Matho3 wins
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA MATH-500Source 99.2%Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 18.685%8.481%o3 leads
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 2.083%0.000%o3 leads
Multimodal
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-MMMU-ProSource 70.1%Not comparable
Design Arena WebsiteSource 1067Not comparable
Inst. Following
Benchmarko3Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)Result
AA-IFBenchSource 71.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, o3 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning) is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 58.01 to 47.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 18.685% and 8.481%.

Which is better for math, o3 or Qwen3 235B 2507 (Reasoning)?

o3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 14.5 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 22, 2026

Choose a model with this week’s evidence

Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.

One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.