Noometry

Model comparison

o1 vs Qwen1.5-110B

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.

Last verified . 17 shared benchmarks.

o1 OpenAI

40.6

Rank #140 Confirmed

Qwen1.5-110B Alibaba (Qwen)

33.6

Rank #231 Confirmed

Summary

  • They share 17 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 8 categories and Qwen1.5-110B in 0 categories; 8 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
  • The widest gap is in writing & preference, where o1 leads 55.8 to 38.1.
  • Qwen1.5-110B has downloadable open weights; the other is API-only.

Side by side

o1Qwen1.5-110B
ProviderOpenAIAlibaba (Qwen)
Noometry Index40.633.6
Released2024-09-122024-04-25
WeightsProprietaryOpen
Context window200K—
Max output100K—
Input $ / M tokens$15—
Output $ / M tokens$60—
Results tracked5220

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

Category by category

Coding o1 leads

o1: 45.7 (#64), Qwen1.5-110B: 32.4 (#260)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Coding13671184
Aider Polyglot61.7%—
WeirdML47.6%—
BigCodeBench Instruct—35%
LiveBench Coding69.7%—
BigCodeBench Complete—44.4%
CadEval56%—
HumanEval+89%—
MBPP+80.2%—

Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable

o1: 24.3 (#111), Qwen1.5-110B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
Cybench10%—
METR Time Horizons51.1%—

Reasoning o1 leads

o1: 27.5 (#103), Qwen1.5-110B: 21.7 (#192)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Hard Prompts13721168
SimpleBench41.7%—
ARC-AGI-130.7%—
Chess Puzzles15%—
EnigmaEval5.7%—
LiveBench Reasoning91.6%—
DTBench74.7%—
LiveBench Data Analysis65.5%—
LMCA22.3%—
Epoch Capabilities Index141.92—
ForecastBench—57.7
LiveBench75.7%—

Math o1 leads

o1: 34.9 (#150), Qwen1.5-110B: 31.1 (#199)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Math13881185
FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3)14.7%—
OTIS Mock AIME 2024-202573.3%—
LiveBench Math80.3%—
MATH Level 594.7%—
FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set)9.3%—

Knowledge o1 leads

o1: 41.5 (#101), Qwen1.5-110B: 30.7 (#217)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Expert13621144
GPQA Diamond76.8%—
Humanity's Last Exam8%—
SimpleQA Verified41.1%—
Confabulations11.7%—

Multimodal Not comparable

o1: 33.6 (#87), Qwen1.5-110B: —

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Vision1168—
GeoBench80%—
VPCT37%—
SpatialViz-Bench41.4%—

Multilingual o1 leads

o1: 48.8 (#137), Qwen1.5-110B: 33.8 (#245)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Non-English13591142
LMArena Chinese13941206
LMArena French13431150
LMArena German13371123
LMArena Japanese13461074
LMArena Korean13961044
LMArena Russian13561118
LMArena Spanish13451141

Instruction Following o1 leads

o1: 75.0 (#82), Qwen1.5-110B: 60.6 (#247)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Instruction Following13681158
LiveBench Instruction Following81.5%—

Long Context o1 leads

o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen1.5-110B: 35.0 (#237)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Longer Query13781157
Fiction.LiveBench83.3%—

Writing & Preference o1 leads

o1: 55.8 (#139), Qwen1.5-110B: 38.1 (#250)

Benchmarko1Qwen1.5-110B
LMArena Text13661175
LMArena Creative Writing13471148
LMArena Multi-Turn13681160
Short-Story Creative Writing70.2%—
LiveBench Language65.4%—

Frequently asked questions

Is o1 better than Qwen1.5-110B?

o1 is the stronger model overall, scoring 40.6 to 33.6 on the Noometry Index.

Is o1 or Qwen1.5-110B better for coding?

o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 45.7 versus 32.4 in the Noometry coding category.

How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen1.5-110B share?

17 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen1.5-110B has 20.

Related comparisons

Go deeper