Model comparison
o3 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Verified leaderboard positions: o3 unranked; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #31
BenchAlign evidence: o3 supported; Qwen3.6-35B-A3B estimated. Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o3 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to o3; 45 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.
Updated July 15, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- o3 only
- 4
- Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3 only becomes the better choice if its workflow or ecosystem matters more than the raw scoreboard.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the provisional aggregate, 59 to 54. 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 14.5.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o3.
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 | Δ | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | o314.5 | Margin→ 73.7 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B88.2 |
| Agentic | o3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.5 |
| Coding | o3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B73.8 |
| Knowledge | o3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B51.8 |
| Multimodal | o3Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B76.3 |
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o3$2 input / $8 output | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o3118 tok/s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o35.38 s | Qwen3.6-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o3200K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic15 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 80.7% | 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 | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench HardSource | 37.1% | 34.8% | o3 leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 41.0% | 35.8% | o3 leads |
| 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 |
| AA Coding IndexSource | — | 41.9% | Not comparable |
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge11 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 30.4% | 31.6% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 82.7% | 84.1% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 20.0% | 20.2% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -15.3% | -21.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 38.4% | 18.9% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 87.1% | 49.7% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.2% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 64.7% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 90% | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | — | 86% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 21.4% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA MATH-500Source | 99.2% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 18.685% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 2.083% | — | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 90.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 83.6% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 78.9% | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
Multimodal16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | 70.1% | 75.0% | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | 1071 | — | Not comparable |
| 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 |
Inst. Following1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA-IFBenchSource | 71.4% | 64.4% | o3 leads |
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's provisional leaderboard, 59 to 54.
Which is better for math, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 14.5. o3 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.