Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Last verified . 26 shared benchmarks.
Alibaba (Qwen)Summary
- They share 26 benchmarks with published results for both. o1 scores higher in 2 categories and Qwen3.6 Plus in 6 categories; 7 gaps are clear of the uncertainty.
- The widest gap is in math, where Qwen3.6 Plus leads 51.8 to 36.1.
- The biggest single-benchmark swing is FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3): 14.7% for o1 and 38.2% for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper at $0.50 / $3 per million input/output tokens, against $15 / $60 for o1.
- Qwen3.6 Plus accepts more context: 1M tokens versus 200K.
Side by side
| o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | |
|---|---|---|
| Provider | OpenAI | Alibaba (Qwen) |
| Noometry Index | 40.9 | 47.5 |
| Released | 2024-09-12 | 2026-03-31 |
| Weights | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Context window | 200K | 1M |
| Max output | 100K | 66K |
| Input $ / M tokens | $15 | $0.50 |
| Output $ / M tokens | $60 | $3 |
| Results tracked | 52 | 37 |
Sponsored placements are available on pages like this one. Advertise on Noometry
Category by category
Coding o1 leads
o1: 46.1 (#70), Qwen3.6 Plus: 40.8 (#130)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Coding | 1367 | 1467 |
| SWE-bench Verified | — | 57.9% |
| Aider Polyglot | 61.7% | — |
| LMArena WebDev | — | 1461 |
| SciCode | — | 40.7% |
| WeirdML | 47.6% | — |
| LiveBench Coding | 69.7% | — |
| CadEval | 56% | — |
| ALE-Bench | — | 670.15 |
| HumanEval+ | 89% | — |
| MBPP+ | 80.2% | — |
Agentic & Tool Use Not comparable
o1: 24.6 (#117), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Cybench | 10% | — |
| METR Time Horizons | 51.1% | — |
| Vending-Bench 2 | — | 5,115 |
Reasoning Qwen3.6 Plus leads
o1: 27.9 (#111), Qwen3.6 Plus: 29.3 (#93)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Chess Puzzles | 15% | 17% |
| LMArena Hard Prompts | 1371 | 1449 |
| DTBench | 74.7% | 81.9% |
| LMCA | 22.3% | 33.1% |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 141.91 | 147.65 |
| SimpleBench | 41.7% | — |
| NYT Connections (extended) | — | 60.3% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | 30.7% | — |
| CritPt | — | 2.9% |
| EnigmaEval | 5.7% | — |
| Thematic Generalization | — | 59.5% |
| LiveBench Reasoning | 91.6% | — |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | — | 12% |
| LiveBench Data Analysis | 65.5% | — |
| LiveBench | 75.7% | — |
Math Qwen3.6 Plus leads
o1: 36.1 (#175), Qwen3.6 Plus: 51.8 (#54)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath (Tiers 1-3) | 14.7% | 38.2% |
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 | 73.3% | 93.3% |
| LMArena Math | 1388 | 1450 |
| FrontierMath (Feb 2025 set) | 9.3% | 26.2% |
| LiveBench Math | 80.3% | — |
| MATH Level 5 | 94.7% | — |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 (v1) | — | 8.3% |
Knowledge Qwen3.6 Plus leads
o1: 41.5 (#110), Qwen3.6 Plus: 56.1 (#45)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 76.8% | 88.4% |
| SimpleQA Verified | 41.1% | 44.1% |
| LMArena Expert | 1361 | 1454 |
| Humanity's Last Exam | 8% | — |
| Confabulations | 11.7% | — |
Multimodal Not comparable
o1: 34.2 (#93), Qwen3.6 Plus: —
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Vision | 1168 | — |
| GeoBench | 80% | — |
| VPCT | 37% | — |
| SpatialViz-Bench | 41.4% | — |
Multilingual Qwen3.6 Plus leads
o1: 48.6 (#142), Qwen3.6 Plus: 53.3 (#70)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Non-English | 1358 | 1424 |
| LMArena Chinese | 1394 | 1477 |
| LMArena French | 1344 | 1455 |
| LMArena German | 1337 | 1452 |
| LMArena Japanese | 1346 | 1389 |
| LMArena Korean | 1396 | 1379 |
| LMArena Russian | 1356 | 1434 |
| LMArena Spanish | 1345 | 1432 |
Instruction Following Too close to call
o1: 74.8 (#86), Qwen3.6 Plus: 75.0 (#74)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Instruction Following | 1367 | 1425 |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | 81.5% | — |
Long Context o1 leads
o1: 50.3 (#9), Qwen3.6 Plus: 45.2 (#49)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Longer Query | 1378 | 1439 |
| Fiction.LiveBench | 83.3% | — |
| CL-bench | — | 20.3% |
Writing & Preference Qwen3.6 Plus leads
o1: 55.6 (#144), Qwen3.6 Plus: 62.2 (#82)
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| LMArena Text | 1366 | 1437 |
| LMArena Creative Writing | 1348 | 1404 |
| LMArena Multi-Turn | 1369 | 1438 |
| Short-Story Creative Writing | 70.2% | — |
| LiveBench Language | 65.4% | — |
Frequently asked questions
Is o1 better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is the stronger model overall, scoring 47.5 to 40.9 on the Noometry Index.
Which is cheaper, o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper. It lists at $0.50 per million input tokens and $3 per million output tokens; o1 lists at $15 and $60.
Is o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
o1 scores higher on coding benchmarks: 46.1 versus 40.8 in the Noometry coding category.
Which has the bigger context window?
Qwen3.6 Plus does, with 1M tokens against 200K.
How many benchmarks do o1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share?
26 benchmarks have published results for both models. o1 has 52 scored results on Noometry and Qwen3.6 Plus has 37.