Skip to main content
BenchLM
Advertise

Model comparison

o4-mini (high) vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B

Data verified

Head-to-head evidence from 0 shared benchmark results across 0 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.

No sourced benchmark result is currently shared by both models. This page therefore compares only the available metadata, pricing, and runtime rows; it does not name a quality winner.
49.98/100
Margin
1.5pts
winning →
51.47/100
0 category wins1 category wins

Public leaderboard positions: o4-mini (high) #118 (Estimated); Qwen3.6-35B-A3B #104 (Estimated). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.

Evidence parity. o4-mini (high) and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B share 0 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 2 results are unique to o4-mini (high); 57 to Qwen3.6-35B-A3B.

Updated July 21, 2026
Shared results
0
o4-mini (high) only
2
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B only
57
Comparable categories
1 / 8

Pick Qwen3.6-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o4-mini (high) 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 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

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 51.47 versus 49.98. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 88.2 against 20.2.

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o4-mini (high).

Operational comparison

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

Metrico4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BComparison
Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokenso4-mini (high)Not availableQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete price comparison is not available.
Generation speedtokens per secondo4-mini (high)161 tok/sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete speed comparison is not available.
First-answer latencyseconds to first tokeno4-mini (high)21.94 sQwen3.6-35B-A3BNot availableA complete latency comparison is not available.
Context windowmaximum listed tokenso4-mini (high)200KQwen3.6-35B-A3B262KQwen3.6-35B-A3B lists the larger context window.

Benchmark Deep Dive

Agentic
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
Terminal-Bench 2.0Source —51.5%Not comparable
Claw-EvalSource —68.7%Not comparable
QwenClawBenchSource —52.6%Not comparable
QwenWebBenchSource —1397Not 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
τ²-bench resultsSource —95.3%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —27.4%Not comparable
GDPval-AASource —1049Not comparable
Gert LabsSource —42.65%Not comparable
Coding
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
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
AA-SciCodeSource —35.8%Not comparable
Reasoning
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-LCRSource —63.7%Not comparable
CritPtSource —0.3%Not comparable
Knowledge
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
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
Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource —31.6%Not comparable
AA-GPQA DiamondSource —84.1%Not comparable
AA-HLESource —20.2%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience IndexSource —-21.4%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience AccuracySource —18.9%Not comparable
AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource —49.7%Not comparable
MathQwen3.6-35B-A3B wins
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source 24.828%—Not comparable
FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source 6.250%—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
Multimodal
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
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
AA-MMMU-ProSource —75.0%Not comparable
Inst. Following
Benchmarko4-mini (high)Qwen3.6-35B-A3BResult
AA-IFBenchSource —64.4%Not comparable
Frequently Asked Questions (2)

Which is better, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 51.47 to 49.98.

Which is better for math, o4-mini (high) or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?

Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 88.2 versus 20.2. o4-mini (high) stays close enough that the answer can still flip depending on your workload.

Related Comparisons

Explore More

OpenAI Compare Pricing Methodology Find Your Best LLM Overall Rankings
Last updated: July 21, 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.