Model comparison
o1 vs o3
Head-to-head evidence from 12 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o1 #129 (Estimated); o3 #131 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1 and o3 share 12 comparable benchmark results. 1 of 8 categories are comparable. 4 results are unique to o1; 4 to o3.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 12
- o1 only
- 4
- o3 only
- 4
- Comparable categories
- 1 / 8
Pick o1 if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o3 only becomes the better choice if mathematics is the priority or you want the cheaper token bill.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 12 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 1 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
o1 has the cleaner BenchAlign overall profile here, landing at 48.1 versus 47.89. It is a real lead, but still close enough that category-level strengths matter more than the headline number.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $2.00 input / $8.00 output per 1M tokens for o3. That is roughly 7.5x on output cost alone.
Category breakdown
Exact category averages are shown below. Not measured means BenchLM does not have enough sourced public coverage for that model and category.
| Category | o1 | Δ | o3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | o19.3 | Margin→ 5.2 | o314.5 |
| Knowledge | o175.7 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
| Inst. Following | o192.2 | MarginNo overlap | o3Not measured |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
- Source ↗
FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)
MathA 9.310%B 18.685%Winner: o3Δ 9.4FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): o1 scored 9.310%; o3 scored 18.685%. o3 wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1 | o3 | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1$15 input / $60 output | o3$2 input / $8 output | o3 has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o198 tok/s | o3118 tok/s | o3 has the higher measured throughput. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o132.29 s | o35.38 s | o3 reaches the first token sooner. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1200K | o3200K | Listed context windows are equal. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 62.6% | 80.7% | o3 leads |
Coding2 benchmarks
Reasoning2 benchmarks
Knowledge8 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | o3 | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 91.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 75.7% | — | Not comparable |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.4% | 30.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.7% | 82.7% | o3 leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.7% | 20.0% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.5% | -15.3% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.7% | 38.4% | o3 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 69.3% | 87.1% | o1 leads |
Matho3 wins3 benchmarks
Multimodal2 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (2)
Which is better, o1 or o3?
o1 is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 48.1 to 47.89. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 9.310% and 18.685%.
Which is better for math, o1 or o3?
o3 has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 14.5 versus 9.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Related Comparisons
Explore More
Choose a model with this week’s evidence
Join 2,000+ readers for ranking moves, pricing changes, and the claims that still need proof.
One email each week. Unsubscribe anytime.