Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.5-35B-A3B
Head-to-head evidence from 13 shared benchmark results across 5 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o1 #129 (Estimated); Qwen3.5-35B-A3B #72 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1 and Qwen3.5-35B-A3B share 13 comparable benchmark results. 2 of 8 categories are comparable. 3 results are unique to o1; 15 to Qwen3.5-35B-A3B.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 13
- o1 only
- 3
- Qwen3.5-35B-A3B only
- 15
- Comparable categories
- 2 / 8
Pick Qwen3.5-35B-A3B if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if instruction following is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 13 shared benchmark results across 5 evidence categories; 2 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 56.97 to 48.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B's sharpest advantage is in knowledge, where it averages 81.6 against 75.7. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is GPQA, 75.7% to 84.2%. o1 does hit back in instruction following, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
o1 is also the more expensive model on tokens at $15.00 input / $60.00 output per 1M tokens, versus $0.00 input / $0.00 output per 1M tokens for Qwen3.5-35B-A3B. That is roughly Infinityx on output cost alone. Qwen3.5-35B-A3B gives you the larger context window at 262K, compared with 200K for o1.
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 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Knowledge | o175.7 | Margin→ 5.9 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.6 |
| Inst. Following | o192.2 | Margin← 0.3 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B91.9 |
| Agentic | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B51.0 |
| Coding | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B60.6 |
| Reasoning | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B59.0 |
| Math | o19.3 | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot measured |
| Multilingual | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B81.0 |
Decisive benchmark drivers
The largest measured benchmark gaps in this matchup, with exact reported values.
More
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1$15 input / $60 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B$0 input / $0 output | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the lower combined listed price. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o198 tok/s | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o132.29 s | Qwen3.5-35B-A3BNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1200K | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B262K | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic5 benchmarks
Coding4 benchmarks
Reasoning3 benchmarks
KnowledgeQwen3.5-35B-A3B wins10 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 91.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 75.7% | 84.2% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.4% | 29.3% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.7% | 84.5% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.7% | 19.7% | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.5% | -46.4% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.7% | 20.5% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 69.3% | 84.0% | o1 leads |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 85.3% | Not comparable |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 63.4% | Not comparable |
Math1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 9.310% | — | Not comparable |
Multilingual1 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.5-35B-A3B | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-ProXSource | — | 81% | Not comparable |
Multimodal5 benchmarks
Frequently Asked Questions (3)
Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 56.97 to 48.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is GPQA, where the scores are 75.7% and 84.2%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.5-35B-A3B has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 81.6 versus 75.7. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Index is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, o1 or Qwen3.5-35B-A3B?
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 91.9. Inside this category, AA-IFBench 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.