Model Comparison
o1
vs. Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 11 benchmarks · OpenAI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
Op o1 12 metric wins Strongest on: Throughput, Latency, Reasoning
Best Value
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
100.0 value score
7.6 reasoning / $0.02/1M
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
$0.01/1M input price
Best Reasoning
o1
56.5 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
o1
20.5 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Best value
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) is 1,500x cheaper on input tokens than o1.
Speed gap
o1 generates about 7.0x as many tokens per second as Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning).
Reasoning gap
o1 leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) by 48.9 points on reasoning.
Coding gap
o1 leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) by 20.5 points on coding.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
o1
OpenAI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Full Comparison
| Metric | Top Pick Op o1 | Al Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $15.00/1M | $0.01/1M |
| Output Cost | $60.00/1M | $0.05/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $26.25/1M | $0.02/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | OpenAI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Dec 5, 2024 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | 129.3 tok/s | 18.6 tok/s |
| TTFT | 14984ms | 525ms |
| Latency | 14984ms | 108341ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 0.6 | 100.0 |
| Reasoning Score | 56.5 | 7.6 |
| Intelligence | 30.7 | 10.5 |
| Coding | 20.5 | 0.0 |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 74.7% | 11.1% |
| MMLU Pro | 84.1% | — |
| HLE | 7.7% | 1.2% |
| LiveCodeBench | 67.9% | — |
| MATH 500 | 97.0% | — |
| AIME (Original) | 72.3% | — |
| SciCode | 35.8% | 0.0% |
| LCR | 59.3% | 5.3% |
| IFBench | 70.3% | 21.5% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 62.6% | 47.7% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 12.9% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning) offers the best value at $0.01/1M, making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
o1 has the strongest reasoning profile with a 56.5 reasoning score, combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
o1 reaches a 20.5 coding index, making it the top choice for software development and code generation tasks.
All models support context windows of ∞+ tokens, suitable for processing lengthy documents and maintaining extended conversations.
When to Choose Each Model
o1
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
