Model comparison
o1 vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Head-to-head evidence from 15 shared benchmark results across 6 categories. Overall scores shown here use the public BenchAlign v5 ranking lane.
Public leaderboard positions: o1 #129 (Estimated); Qwen3.6 Plus #30 (Supported). Intervals and evidence labels describe ranking uncertainty, not a guarantee for a specific workload.
Evidence parity. o1 and Qwen3.6 Plus share 15 comparable benchmark results. 3 of 8 categories are comparable. 1 result is unique to o1; 45 to Qwen3.6 Plus.
Updated July 23, 2026- Shared results
- 15
- o1 only
- 1
- Qwen3.6 Plus only
- 45
- Comparable categories
- 3 / 8
Pick Qwen3.6 Plus if you want the stronger benchmark profile. o1 only becomes the better choice if knowledge is the priority.
Confidence note. This is a partial-evidence comparison with 15 shared benchmark results across 6 evidence categories; 3 of 8 categories currently have scoreable aggregates for both models. Treat the verdict as directional until coverage is more balanced.
Why this result
Qwen3.6 Plus is clearly ahead on the BenchAlign aggregate, 65.2 to 48.1. The gap is large enough that you do not need to squint at the spreadsheet to see the difference.
Qwen3.6 Plus's sharpest advantage is in mathematics, where it averages 60.5 against 9.3. The single biggest benchmark swing on the page is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), 9.310% to 26.207%. o1 does hit back in knowledge, so the answer changes if that is the part of the workload you care about most.
Qwen3.6 Plus gives you the larger context window at 1M, 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 | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Math | o19.3 | Margin→ 51.2 | Qwen3.6 Plus60.5 |
| Knowledge | o175.7 | Margin← 18.6 | Qwen3.6 Plus57.1 |
| Inst. Following | o192.2 | Margin← 9.9 | Qwen3.6 Plus82.3 |
| Agentic | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus61.6 |
| Coding | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus70.3 |
| Reasoning | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus62.0 |
| Multilingual | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus84.7 |
| Multimodal | o1Not measured | MarginNo overlap | Qwen3.6 Plus79.8 |
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 26.207%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 16.9FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3): o1 scored 9.310%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 26.207%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
GPQA
KnowledgeA 75.7%B 90.4%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 14.7GPQA: o1 scored 75.7%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 90.4%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark. - Source ↗
IFEval
Inst. FollowingA 92.2%B 94.3%Winner: Qwen3.6 PlusΔ 2.1IFEval: o1 scored 92.2%; Qwen3.6 Plus scored 94.3%. Qwen3.6 Plus wins this benchmark.
Operational comparison
Runtime and commercial metrics are compared only when both models have a complete sourced value.
| Metric | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Comparison |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input / output priceUSD per 1M tokens | o1$15 input / $60 output | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete price comparison is not available. |
| Generation speedtokens per second | o198 tok/s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete speed comparison is not available. |
| First-answer latencyseconds to first token | o132.29 s | Qwen3.6 PlusNot available | A complete latency comparison is not available. |
| Context windowmaximum listed tokens | o1200K | Qwen3.6 Plus1M | Qwen3.6 Plus lists the larger context window. |
Benchmark Deep Dive
Agentic16 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| τ²-bench resultsSource | 62.6% | 97.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0Source | — | 61.6% | Not comparable |
| Claw-EvalSource | — | 58.8% | Not comparable |
| QwenClawBenchSource | — | 57.2% | Not comparable |
| τ³-bench resultsSource | — | 70.7% | Not comparable |
| VITA-BenchSource | — | 44.3% | Not comparable |
| DeepPlanningSource | — | 41.5% | Not comparable |
| ToolathlonSource | — | 39.8% | Not comparable |
| MCP AtlasSource | — | 48.2% | Not comparable |
| MCP-TasksSource | — | 74.1% | Not comparable |
| WideResearchSource | — | 74.3% | Not comparable |
| AA Agentic IndexSource | — | 27.6% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 31.8% | Not comparable |
| GDPval-AASource | — | 1135 | Not comparable |
| Gert LabsSource | — | 50.60% | Not comparable |
| ResearchClawBenchSource | — | 18.0% | Not comparable |
Coding7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding IndexSource | 39.7% | 54.5% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-SciCodeSource | 35.8% | 40.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SWE-bench VerifiedSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| SWE-bench ProSource | — | 56.6% | Not comparable |
| SWE MultilingualSource | — | 73.8% | Not comparable |
| LiveCodeBench v6Source | — | 87.1% | Not comparable |
| Vibe Code BenchSource | — | 25.56% | Not comparable |
Reasoning4 benchmarks
Knowledgeo1 wins13 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLUSource | 91.8% | — | Not comparable |
| GPQASource | 75.7% | 90.4% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence IndexSource | 23.4% | 39.6% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-GPQA DiamondSource | 74.7% | 88.2% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-HLESource | 7.7% | 25.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience IndexSource | -10.5% | 2.7% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AA-Omniscience AccuracySource | 34.7% | 26.2% | o1 leads |
| AA-Omniscience Hallucination RateSource | 69.3% | 32.0% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| SuperGPQASource | — | 71.6% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ProSource | — | 88.5% | Not comparable |
| MMLU-ReduxSource | — | 94.5% | Not comparable |
| C-EvalSource | — | 93.3% | Not comparable |
| HLESource | — | 28.8% | Not comparable |
MathQwen3.6 Plus wins7 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3)Source | 9.310% | 26.207% | Qwen3.6 Plus leads |
| AIME26Source | — | 95.3% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2025Source | — | 96.7% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Nov 2025Source | — | 94.6% | Not comparable |
| HMMT Feb 2026Source | — | 87.8% | Not comparable |
| MMAnswerBenchSource | — | 83.8% | Not comparable |
| FrontierMath v2 (Tier 4)Source | — | 8.333% | Not comparable |
Multilingual2 benchmarks
Multimodal9 benchmarks
| Benchmark | o1 | Qwen3.6 Plus | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMMUSource | — | 86.0% | Not comparable |
| MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.8% | Not comparable |
| MathVisionSource | — | 88.0% | Not comparable |
| VideoMMMUSource | — | 84.0% | Not comparable |
| ScreenSpot ProSource | — | 68.2% | Not comparable |
| CharXivSource | — | 81.5% | Not comparable |
| V*Source | — | 96.9% | Not comparable |
| AA-MMMU-ProSource | — | 78.0% | Not comparable |
| Design Arena WebsiteSource | — | 1249 | Not comparable |
Frequently Asked Questions (4)
Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus is ahead on BenchLM's BenchAlign leaderboard, 65.2 to 48.1. The biggest single separator in this matchup is FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3), where the scores are 9.310% and 26.207%.
Which is better for knowledge tasks, o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
o1 has the edge for knowledge tasks in this comparison, averaging 75.7 versus 57.1. Inside this category, AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for math, o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
Qwen3.6 Plus has the edge for math in this comparison, averaging 60.5 versus 9.3. Inside this category, FrontierMath v2 (Tiers 1-3) is the benchmark that creates the most daylight between them.
Which is better for instruction following, o1 or Qwen3.6 Plus?
o1 has the edge for instruction following in this comparison, averaging 92.2 versus 82.3. 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.