Model comparison

o1-pro vs Qwen3.5-Flash

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 0 shared benchmarks.

o1-pro OpenAI

31.2

Rank #264 Reported

Qwen3.5-Flash Alibaba (Qwen)

42.3

Rank #105 Confirmed

Summary

  • The widest gap is in knowledge, where Qwen3.5-Flash leads 43.2 to 29.3.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper at $0.10 / $0.40 per million input/output tokens, against $150 / $600 for o1-pro.
  • Qwen3.5-Flash accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.

Side by side

o1-pro and Qwen3.5-Flash specifications
o1-proQwen3.5-Flash
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index31.242.3
Released2025-03-192026-02-23
WeightsProprietaryProprietary
Context window200K1M
Max output100K66K
Input $ / M tokens$150$0.10
Output $ / M tokens$600$0.40
Results tracked332

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

Category by category

Coding Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 33.9 (#234)

Coding benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena WebDev—1243
LMArena Coding—1412
ALE-Bench—221.8

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: —

Agentic & Tool Use benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
Vending-Bench 2—462.69

Reasoning Qwen3.5-Flash leads

o1-pro: 20.2 (#223), Qwen3.5-Flash: 32.9 (#63)

Reasoning benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
ARC-AGI-123.3%—
Chess Puzzles—21%
EnigmaEval6.1%—
LMArena Hard Prompts—1404
Mystery Game Puzzles—20%
DTBench—82.9%
LMCA—29.1%
Epoch Capabilities Index—143.98

Math Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 36.3 (#117)

Math benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)—18.2%
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025—84.4%
LMArena Math—1407
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)—6.2%
FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1)—0%

Knowledge Qwen3.5-Flash leads

o1-pro: 29.3 (#227), Qwen3.5-Flash: 43.2 (#84)

Knowledge benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
GPQA Diamond—82.3%
Humanity's Last Exam8.1%—
SimpleQA Verified—20.3%
Vectara Hallucination Rate—10.5%
LMArena Expert—1408

Multilingual Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 50.7 (#116)

Multilingual benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Non-English—1385
LMArena Chinese—1446
LMArena French—1412
LMArena German—1389
LMArena Japanese—1369
LMArena Korean—1344
LMArena Russian—1379
LMArena Spanish—1399

Instruction Following Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 72.8 (#133)

Instruction Following benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Instruction Following—1374

Long Context Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 42.4 (#119)

Long Context benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Longer Query—1392

Writing & Preference Not comparable

o1-pro: —, Qwen3.5-Flash: 58.2 (#117)

Writing & Preference benchmarks
Benchmarko1-proQwen3.5-Flash
LMArena Text—1397
LMArena Creative Writing—1343
LMArena Multi-Turn—1393

Frequently asked questions

Is o1-pro better than Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is the stronger model overall, scoring 42.3 to 31.2 on the Noometry Index.

Which is cheaper, o1-pro or Qwen3.5-Flash?

Qwen3.5-Flash is cheaper. It lists at $0.10 per million input tokens and $0.40 per million output tokens; o1-pro lists at $150 and $600.

Which has the bigger context window?

Qwen3.5-Flash does, with 1M tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks do o1-pro and Qwen3.5-Flash share?

0 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1-pro has 3 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.5-Flash has 32.

Related comparisons

Go deeper