Model comparison
o4-mini (high) vs Qwen3.5 397B
Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o4-mini (high) #118 (Estimated); Qwen3.5 397B #71 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o4-mini (high) and Qwen3.5 397B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to o4-mini (high); 55 to Qwen3.5 397B.
Updated July 22, 2026- Shared results
- 0
- o4-mini (high) only
- 2
- Qwen3.5 397B only
- 55
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5 397B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o4-mini (high) only becomes the better choice if you need the larger 200K context window or you want the stronger reasoning-first profile.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 0 shared benchmark results across 0 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
Qwen3.5 397B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 57.01 to 49.98. 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 mathematics, where it averages 90.6 against 20.2.
o4-mini (high) 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. o4-mini (high) gives you the larger context window at 200K, compared with 128K for Qwen3.5 397B.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.5 397B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o4-mini (high)Not available | Qwen3.5 397B$0.6 input / $3.6 output | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o4-mini (high)161 tok/s | Qwen3.5 397B96 tok/s | o4-mini (high) has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o4-mini (high)21.94 s | Qwen3.5 397B2.44 s | Qwen3.5 397B reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o4-mini (high)200K | Qwen3.5 397B128K | o4-mini (high) lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic18 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| τ²-bench resultsSource | — | 95.6% | 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 |
Coding5 benchmarks
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledge12 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQASource | — | 88.4% | Not comparable |
| 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 |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | — | 33.7% | Not comparable |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | — | 89.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-HLESource | — | 27.3% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | — | -29.8% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | — | 31.4% | Not comparable |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | — | 89.1% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.5 397B wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o4-mini (high) | Qwen3.5 397B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 24.828% | — | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | 6.250% | — | Not comparable |
| AIME26Source | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 94.8% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 92.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.9% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 80.9% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal7 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 57.01 to 49.98.
Which is better for math, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.5 397B?
Qwen3.5 397B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 90.6 versus 20.2. o4-mini (high) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
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.