Data as of October 19, 2026 · How the score is built
Released December 2024200K context
o1
Decision readingo1 scores 38.4 out of 100 and ranks #148 of 226. This profile shows 4 source-displayable benchmark rows; its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #46. API pricing is $15 input and $60 output per million tokens.
Released December 2024 — see all recent releases
Decision snapshot
Each value carries a field reference instead of floating alone. Markers compare this model with the current ranked and priced catalog; they are not absolute quality thresholds.
Capability
38.4/100
field median 50#148 of 226 ranked models
Public
#148of 226
Verified —
Price
$15input / $60 output
input median $0.75blended $37.50
Speed
98tok/s
field median 94.5 tok/sFirst token 32.29 s
Context
200Ktokens
field median 256,000Reported for this model; direct source link not stored
Strongest published evidence
Instruction Following ranks #46. A well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Validate before choosing
4 published rows leave some tracked benchmark slots empty. Knowledge is its lowest eligible category at #112.
Source-linked · 4 displayable benchmark rows
Category score record
Scores and ranks appear only where published evidence can be displayed. The table keeps the score, weight, cohort, and evidence state together.
| Category | Score | Rank | Percentile | Weight | Benchmarks | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AgenticWeight 22%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| CodingWeight 20%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| ReasoningWeight 17%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| MultimodalWeight 12%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| KnowledgeRank #112 of 185Percentile 40thWeight 12%2 benchmarksVerified | 41.6 | 2 benchmarks | Verified | |||
| MultilingualWeight 7%0 benchmarksNot measured | Not measured | 0 benchmarks | Not measured | |||
| Inst. FollowingRank #46 of 148Percentile 69thWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 86.0 | 1 benchmark | Verified | |||
| MathRank Not rankedWeight 5%1 benchmarkVerified | 33.5 | 1 benchmark | Verified |
4 of 682 tracked benchmark slots have displayable evidence · bars run 0–100
Coverage detailsHow much of this is verified
Coverage is split by category so a strong number never hides a thin evidence base. Verified means the row is tied to a published source; provisional rows remain visible but separate.
- AgenticNot measured
- CodingNot measured
- ReasoningNot measured
- MultimodalNot measured
- Knowledge2/2 verified
- MultilingualNot measured
- Inst. Following1/1 verified
- Math1/1 verified
Capability shape
Each axis shows percentile within that category’s eligible cohort. The comparison outline is the median of the six nearest public-score peers; a collapsed vertex means the category is not rank-eligible.
o1 category percentile values
- AgenticNot eligible
- CodingNot eligible
- ReasoningNot eligible
- MultimodalNot eligible
- Knowledge40th percentile
- MultilingualNot eligible
- Instruction following69th percentile
- MathNot eligible
The dashed outline is median of 6 nearest peers.
Eligible category ranks
- AgenticNot ranked
- CodingNot ranked
- ReasoningNot ranked
- MultimodalNot ranked
- Knowledge#112/185
- MultilingualNot ranked
- Inst. Following#46/148
- MathNot ranked
Benchmark ledger
Knowledge opens by default. The marker compares each value with the best source-verified result in the catalog; provisional leaders do not set the reference. Expand the remaining categories for every published row.
Knowledge2 rows
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPQAGraduate-Level Google-Proof Q&A | Score75.7% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 96% | Gap20.3 behind | Weight3% ref. weight | Provider exact |
| MMLUMassive Multitask Language Understanding | Score91.8% | Versus best verified row Best verified: o1 · 91.8% | GapBest verified | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Inst. Following1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFEvalInstruction-Following Eval | Score92.2% | Versus best verified row Best verified: LFM2.5-24B-A2B · 96.8% | Gap4.5 behind | WeightDisplay only | Provider exact |
Math1 row
| Benchmark | Score | Versus best verified row | Gap | Weight | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)FrontierMath v2 Tiers 1-3 | Score14.737% | Versus best verified row Best verified: GPT-6 Astra · 93.684% | Gap78.9 behind | WeightWeighted 30% | Benchmark exact |
Bars run 0–100; the dark tick marks the best source-verified value
All 4 rowsWhat it costs to get this score
Published API price against the public score. The x-axis uses a log scale; the dashed path marks models that are not beaten by a cheaper, higher-scoring option. Price uses average of published input and output rates.
o1 · 38.4 score · $37.50 blended per million tokens
The chart opens on the current model. Scroll horizontally to inspect the full price axis.
Horizontal: blended price per million tokens, log scale · Vertical: public score
Published price history
This chart appears only when at least two dated first-party price records exist for the exact model. It shows rate changes, not an inferred cost trend.
2 dated first-party price records. The newest record lists $60 per million tokens.
Lineage
The sequence follows explicit supersedes links. Each score is estimated for that model; a relative can inform a sparse estimate but never sets a floor, so a newer release can score below an earlier one. Scores and prices remain blank when the corresponding public row or first-party rate is unavailable.
Spec sheet
Each documented value carries its source. Missing fields stay visible as not sourced or not published, rather than disappearing from the page.
- API model ID
- Not published
- Context window
- 200K
- Maximum output
- Not sourced yet
- Knowledge cutoff
- Not sourced yet
- Input modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Output modalities
- Not sourced yet
- Parameters
- Not disclosed by the provider
- Availability
- Not sourced yet
- Cloud regions
- Not tracked yet
- Lifecycle
- Established
- API capabilities
- Tool calling, structured outputs, and batch support are not tracked yet
- Prompt caching
- Not documented in the pricing record
- Self-host
- Weights are not published
- Rate limits
- Not tracked yet
How to read this profile
The visual layer above carries the decisions. These notes preserve the model, ranking, coverage, and family context behind the numbers.
o1 ranks #148 of 226 on the public leaderboard with a score of 38.38/100. It does not yet have enough sourced coverage for a verified position.
o1 is a proprietary model with a 200K context window. It uses an explicit reasoning mode, which can improve complex problem solving while adding latency and token use.
o1 sits in the o1 family with o1-preview, o1-pro. Its explicit predecessor is o1-preview. 4 of 682 tracked benchmark slots currently have displayable evidence. Missing categories stay blank.
Its strongest eligible category is Instruction Following at #46, while its lowest eligible position is Knowledge at #112. a well-rounded choice across a range of tasks.
Last updated October 19, 2026. Runtime fields remain blank until a sourced snapshot exists.
Questions
How does o1 perform overall in AI benchmarks?
o1 ranks #148 out of 226 models on the public BenchAlign leaderboard, with a score of 38.38/100. Its evidence status is Estimated, and this profile shows 4 source-displayable benchmark rows. The label describes evidence depth, not a provider quality claim; inspect category rows before choosing a workload.
Is o1 good for knowledge and understanding?
o1 ranks #112 out of 185 eligible models for knowledge and understanding, with a public category score of 41.6/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Is o1 good for mathematics?
o1 has source-displayable benchmark coverage for mathematics, but the public category table does not assign it a rank there. The individual rows remain available for inspection. A missing category position means the evidence threshold was not met; it does not convert the model's unmeasured work into a zero.
Is o1 good for instruction following?
o1 ranks #46 out of 148 eligible models for instruction following, with a public category score of 86/100. Higher-ranked alternatives are available for workloads where this category decides the choice. Check the underlying rows before treating the aggregate as a workload guarantee.
Which sibling models are related to o1?
o1 belongs to the o1 family. Related tracked variants include o1-preview, o1-pro. A sibling link indicates shared lineage or a documented configuration relationship; it does not mean the variants have identical pricing, context limits, benchmark evidence, or deployment behavior. Compare before switching.
Does o1 have full benchmark coverage on BenchLM?
No. o1 currently has 15 source-displayable rows across 682 tracked benchmark slots. The profile exposes published, non-generated evidence and leaves missing categories blank until an exact evaluation is available. Coverage describes how much was measured; it is not a penalty added to an individual benchmark result.
What is the context window size of o1?
o1 has a reported context window of 200K in the exact-model catalog record. The value stays visible, but the profile marks its source link as unavailable instead of presenting it as directly documented. Maximum output length remains separate because providers often publish a different limit.