Compare / Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs o1
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 vs o1
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 18 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 18 results both models have, the better value on each. Results whose reported ranges overlap are too close to call.
Results as of 9 October 2026 (catalogue release 2026-10-09-dd620e778ac5). See also Alibaba vs OpenAI, every model from both labs.
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1? The short answer
Pick o1 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 15.2 against 12.7). Pick Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 if cost matters more: it costs 27 times less per token.
- Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is cheaper: $0.97 against $26.25 per million tokens, 27 times less.
- o1 scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 15.2 against 12.7.
- Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is newer: released 25 Jul 2025, against 17 Dec 2024 for o1.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 does better for reasoning and knowledge; o1 for writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | o1 | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.30 in · $3.00 out | $15.00 in · $60.00 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.97 | $26.25 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.75 (Alibaba) | – |
| Intelligence Index | 12.7 | 15.2 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | – | – |
| Context window | 131,072 tokens | 200,000 tokens |
| Released | 25 Jul 2025 (newer) | 17 Dec 2024 |
| Weights | Open | Closed |
| Developer based in | China | the US |
Prices are the developer's list price where we have read it, otherwise the typical host on OpenRouter; see every model's price. Intelligence and speed from Artificial Analysis.
Which is better for what
Each model's rank among the models on sale today, for each kind of work, from our own benchmarks and licensed sources. Further right is better; the better rank is in green.
Every shared result
Each model's best result on every measure both have, grouped by benchmark, with the setting that produced it. Under each measure, every model that benchmark has measured is a grey tick, best to the right, so you can see where the two sit in the field. The headline measures of each benchmark come first; the rest are under "Show all". Green marks the better value; where a source reports ranges that overlap, neither is marked.
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 135 of 387 measured | 1,400 | 1,402 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 166 of 380 measured | 1,404 | 1,370 |
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 133 · 118 of 385 measured | 1,371 | 1,381 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 147 · 127 of 243 measured | 12.7 | 15.2 |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 114 · 140 of 231 measured | 79.0% | 74.7% |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 122 · 170 of 242 measured | 15.9% | 7.0% |
| SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) reported by SimpleQA Verified (Epoch AI) · 1 result | ||
| Correct answers% of questions, higher is better 44 · 41 of 76 measured | 40.4% | 41.1%high reasoning |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 139 · 41 of 230 measured | 32.4 | 61.0low reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 166 · 140 of 230 measured | 30.0% | 24.0%high reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 194 · 66 of 230 measured | 0.31 | 0.36high reasoning |
Show all 18 results (8 more)
| Measure | Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 | o1 |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 85 · 152 of 338 measured | 1,466 | 1,402 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 142 · 113 of 387 measured | 1,385 | 1,407 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 139 · 110 of 386 measured | 1,377 | 1,398 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 5 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 98 · 73 of 131 measured | 22.1 | 39.7 |
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 101 · 53 of 195 measured | 51.2% | 70.3% |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 99 · 126 of 233 measured | 72.0% | 65.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 116 · 120 of 190 measured | 13.6% | 12.9% |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 101 · 94 of 193 measured | 53.2% | 62.6% |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 better than o1?
Pick o1 if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 15.2 against 12.7). Pick Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 if cost matters more: it costs 27 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 is cheaper: $0.97 against $26.25 per million tokens, 27 times less.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1?
Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 ranks 117 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 130 for o1.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1?
o1 ranks 75 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 122 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1?
o1 ranks 82 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 92 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 or o1?
o1: 200,000 tokens, against 131,072 for Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507.
Run Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 and o1 on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.