Model Comparison
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
vs. Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Allen Institute for AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)5 metric winsStrongest on: Input price, Output price, Intelligence
Lowest Price
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
$0.00/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
26.2 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
1.2 coding index
Composite Indices
Higher is better; speed and price are normalized
Standard Benchmarks
Only benchmarks with data are shown
Differences That Matter
Price gap
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) is ∞x cheaper on input tokens than Olmo 3 7B Instruct.
Reasoning gap
Olmo 3 7B Instruct leads Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) by 15.3 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) wins 5 measurable categories, including Input price, Output price, Intelligence, LCR.
Response Face-Off
Run one prompt through the selected models and compare response quality with live speed and cost context.
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
Allen Institute for AI
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
Alibaba
TTFT
—
Time
—
tok/s
—
Tokens
—
Cost
—
Which answer was more useful?
Chat with leading AI models
Use Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini alongside with EU-Hosted Models like Deepseek, Qwen & Kimi.
EU-hosted inference
Servers in Germany & Finland. Designed to meet strict GDPR and ISO 27001 compliance requirements.
Full Comparison
| Metric | Al Olmo 3 7B Instruct | Top Pick Al Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $0.00/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.13/1M | — |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Allen Institute for AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Nov 20, 2025 | Mar 2, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | — |
| TTFT | — | — |
| Latency | — | — |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | — |
| Reasoning Score | 26.2 | 11.0 |
| Intelligence | 2.8 | 4.4 |
| Coding | — | 1.2 |
| Math | 41.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 40.0% | 23.6% |
| MMLU Pro | 52.2% | — |
| HLE | 5.8% | 4.9% |
| LiveCodeBench | 26.6% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 41.3% | — |
| SciCode | 10.3% | 2.9% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 6.7% |
| IFBench | 32.8% | 21.6% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 12.6% | 65.2% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.0% | 0.0% |
Key Takeaways
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) offers the best value at $0.00/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Olmo 3 7B Instruct has the strongest reasoning profile with a 26.2 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 1.2 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
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
Qwen3.5 0.8B (Non-reasoning)
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
