Compare / Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs gpt-oss-120b
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B vs gpt-oss-120b
Which is cheaper, which is more capable, and which does better at each kind of work, from 26 results on 4 sources that measured both models.
Of the 26 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.
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b? The short answer
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 17.7 against 11.6). Pick gpt-oss-120b if cost matters more: it costs 2.7 times less per token.
- gpt-oss-120b is cheaper: $0.26 against $0.72 per million tokens, 2.7 times less.
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B scores higher on the Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index: 17.7 against 11.6.
- Qwen3.5-122B-A10B is newer: released 24 Feb 2026, against 5 Aug 2025 for gpt-oss-120b.
- On third-party benchmarks, on the results both models have: Qwen3.5-122B-A10B does better for agents and tool use, reasoning and knowledge, writing and sticking to the facts.
Head to head
Every fact side by side
| Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | gpt-oss-120b | |
|---|---|---|
| Price per million tokens | $0.26 in · $2.08 out | $0.15 in · $0.60 out |
| Blended (3 in : 1 out) | $0.72 | $0.26 |
| Cheapest host, blended | $0.72 (Alibaba) | $0.065 (CoreWeave, FP4) |
| Intelligence Index | 17.7 | 11.6 |
| Spring Prompt overall | – | – |
| Output speed, tokens a second | 147 | 188 |
| Context window | 262,144 tokens | 131,072 tokens |
| Released | 24 Feb 2026 (newer) | 5 Aug 2025 |
| Weights | Open | Open |
| 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 | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 3 results | ||
| Overall · TextArena rating, higher is better 117 · 187 of 387 measured | 1,416 | 1,352 |
| Overall · Text factualityArena rating, higher is better 103 · 142 of 163 measured | 1,428 | 1,385 |
| Business, management and finance · TextArena rating, higher is better 105 · 183 of 380 measured | 1,422 | 1,352 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 3 results | ||
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Indexindex score, higher is better 114 · 157 of 243 measured | 17.7no reasoning | 11.6high reasoning |
| GPQA Diamond% of questions, higher is better 75 · 118 of 231 measured | 85.7% | 78.2%high reasoning |
| Humanity's Last Exam% of questions, higher is better 92 · 110 of 242 measured | 25.2% | 19.6%high reasoning |
| UGI Leaderboard reported by UGI Leaderboard · 3 results | ||
| Writing score · UGIscore out of 100, higher is better 112 · 116 of 230 measured | 39.5no reasoning | 38.5medium reasoning |
| Requested-length error · UGI% off the requested word count, lower is better 33 · 224 of 230 measured | 9.0%thinking reasoning | 107.0%medium reasoning |
| Style adherence · UGIscore from 0 to 1, higher is better 83 · 217 of 230 measured | 0.36no reasoning | 0.29medium reasoning |
| Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard reported by Vectara Hallucination Leaderboard · 2 results | ||
| Hallucination rate · Vectara% of summaries, lower is better 72 · 88 of 104 measured | 11.2% | 14.2% |
| Answer rate · Vectara% of documents, higher is better 31 · 17 of 104 measured | 99.8% | 99.9% |
Show all 26 results (15 more)
| Measure | Qwen3.5-122B-A10B | gpt-oss-120b |
|---|---|---|
| Arena (formerly LMArena) reported by Arena (formerly LMArena) · 4 results | ||
| Creative writing · TextArena rating, higher is better 136 · 238 of 385 measured | 1,366 | 1,278 |
| Expert prompts · TextArena rating, higher is better 111 · 188 of 338 measured | 1,442 | 1,357 |
| Instruction following · TextArena rating, higher is better 115 · 204 of 387 measured | 1,406 | 1,323 |
| Writing, literature and language · TextArena rating, higher is better 125 · 215 of 386 measured | 1,387 | 1,309 |
| Artificial Analysis reported by Artificial Analysis · 11 results | ||
| Terminal-Bench 2.1% of tasks, higher is better 64 · 87 of 130 measured | 47.6% | 26.2%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0% of tasks, higher is better 66 · 66 of 112 measured | 0.0% | 0.0%high reasoning |
| τ-bench banking% of tasks, higher is better 58 · 67 of 121 measured | 15.3% | 12.8%high reasoning |
| Artificial Analysis Coding Indexindex score, higher is better 65 · 86 of 131 measured | 45.7 | 30.4high reasoning |
| IFBench% of instructions, higher is better 22 · 58 of 195 measured | 75.7% | 69.0%high reasoning |
| Long-context reasoning (AA-LCR)% of questions, higher is better 72 · 152 of 233 measured | 76.3% | 52.0%high reasoning |
| Output speedtokens per second, higher is better 21 · 12 of 74 measured | 147no reasoning | 188low reasoning |
| SciCode% of problems, higher is better 79 · 93 of 113 measured | 39.7% | 34.0%high reasoning |
| Terminal-Bench Hard% of tasks, higher is better 65 · 84 of 190 measured | 31.1% | 23.5%high reasoning |
| Time to first answer tokenseconds, lower is better 29 · 46 of 74 measured | 1.05no reasoning | 11.2low reasoning |
| τ²-bench telecom% of tasks, higher is better 30 · 86 of 193 measured | 93.6% | 65.8%high reasoning |
Compare them with other models
Quick answers
Is Qwen3.5-122B-A10B better than gpt-oss-120b?
Pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B if quality matters most: it scores higher (Intelligence Index 17.7 against 11.6). Pick gpt-oss-120b if cost matters more: it costs 2.7 times less per token.
Which is cheaper, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
gpt-oss-120b is cheaper: $0.26 against $0.72 per million tokens, 2.7 times less.
Which is faster, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
gpt-oss-120b writes about 188 tokens a second on its usual API, against 147 for Qwen3.5-122B-A10B (Artificial Analysis).
Which is better for agents and tool use, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ranks 95 of 164 models on sale for multi-step tasks with tools: support desks, coding agents, function calls, against 120 for gpt-oss-120b.
Which is better for reasoning and knowledge, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ranks 87 of 198 models on sale for hard questions across science, maths and general knowledge, against 114 for gpt-oss-120b.
Which is better for writing, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ranks 102 of 188 models on sale for what people prefer in blind comparisons, and judged writing quality, against 133 for gpt-oss-120b.
Which is better for sticking to the facts, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B ranks 108 of 152 models on sale for summarising without inventing things, and factual answers, against 139 for gpt-oss-120b.
Which has the bigger context window, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B or gpt-oss-120b?
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B: 262,144 tokens, against 131,072 for gpt-oss-120b.
Run Qwen3.5-122B-A10B and gpt-oss-120b on your own prompt
Benchmarks aren't your data. Try both side by side in the playground, with the cost of every answer.