Noometry

Model comparison

o1-mini vs Qwen3.6 27B

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 3 shared benchmarks.

o1-mini OpenAI

33.7

Rank #230 Confirmed

Qwen3.6 27B Alibaba (Qwen)

41.9

Rank #112 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 3 benchmarks with published results for both. o1-mini scores higher in 0 categories and Qwen3.6 27B in 5 categories; 5 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.6 27B leads 52.4 to 34.8.
  • The biggest single-benchmark swing is OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025: 46.9% for o1-mini and 91.1% for Qwen3.6 27B.
  • Qwen3.6 27B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1-miniQwen3.6 27B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index33.741.9
Released2024-09-122026-04-22
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window—262K
Max output—66K
Input $ / M tokens—$0.60
Output $ / M tokens—$3.60
Results tracked3911

Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry

Category by category

Coding Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1-mini: 35.1 (#218), Qwen3.6 27B: 38.5 (#162)

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
Aider Polyglot32.9%—
SciCode—37.3%
WeirdML36.3%—
LiveBench Coding48%—
LMArena Coding1362—
HumanEval+89%—
MBPP+78.8%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1-mini: 24.3 (#112), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
Cybench10%—

Reasoning Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1-mini: 8.9 (#340), Qwen3.6 27B: 24.4 (#148)

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
Epoch Capabilities Index135.82146.47
ARC-AGI-20.8%—
SimpleBench18.1%—
ARC-AGI-114%—
CritPt—0.9%
Chess Puzzles—22%
LiveBench Reasoning72.3%—
LMArena Hard Prompts1333—
Mystery Game Puzzles—7%
DTBench—78.1%
LiveBench Data Analysis57.9%—
LMCA—34.5%
LiveBench57.8%—

Math Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1-mini: 33.7 (#168), Qwen3.6 27B: 47.5 (#56)

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202546.9%91.1%
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—35.1%
LiveBench Math62%—
LMArena Math1358—
MATH Level 589.2%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)1.7%—

Knowledge Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1-mini: 34.8 (#180), Qwen3.6 27B: 52.4 (#58)

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
GPQA Diamond62.4%85.9%
Confabulations18.6%—
LMArena Expert1316—

Multilingual Not comparable

o1-mini: 43.8 (#177), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Non-English1289—
LMArena Chinese1314—
LMArena French1292—
LMArena German1278—
LMArena Japanese1245—
LMArena Korean1223—
LMArena Russian1283—
LMArena Spanish1302—

Instruction Following Not comparable

o1-mini: 67.0 (#200), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
LiveBench Instruction Following65.4%—
LMArena Instruction Following1304—

Long Context Not comparable

o1-mini: 40.1 (#156), Qwen3.6 27B: —

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Longer Query1321—

Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 27B leads

o1-mini: 48.6 (#196), Qwen3.6 27B: 50.3 (#180)

Benchmarko1-miniQwen3.6 27B
LMArena Text1317—
LMArena Creative Writing1244—
Short-Story Creative Writing64.9%—
EQ-Bench 4—1026
LMArena Multi-Turn1314—
LiveBench Language40.9%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o1-mini better than Qwen3.6 27B?

Qwen3.6 27B is the stronger model overall, scoring 41.9 to 33.7 on the Noometry Index.

Is o1-mini or Qwen3.6 27B better for coding?

Qwen3.6 27B scores higher on coding benchmarks: 38.5 versus 35.1 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o1-mini and Qwen3.6 27B share?

3 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-mini has 39 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 27B has 11.

Related comparisons

Go deeper