Model Comparison
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
vs. Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
Comparing 2 AI models · 10 benchmarks · Allen Institute for AI, Alibaba
Recommended Pick
AlQwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)10 metric winsStrongest on: Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence
Best Value
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
100.0 value score
26.2 reasoning / $0.13/1M
Lowest Price
Olmo 3 7B Instruct
$0.10/1M input price
Best Reasoning
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
41.7 reasoning score
Blends available reasoning benchmarks
Best for Coding
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
43.3 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
Olmo 3 7B Instruct has the strongest quality-to-price mix at 100.0 out of 100 value points.
Price gap
Olmo 3 7B Instruct is 4.0x cheaper on input tokens than Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning).
Reasoning gap
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) leads Olmo 3 7B Instruct by 15.5 points on reasoning.
Top-pick rationale
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) wins 10 measurable categories, including Throughput, Reasoning, Intelligence, GPQA.
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 122B A10B (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 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing per 1M tokens | ||
| Input Cost | $0.10/1M | $0.40/1M |
| Output Cost | $0.20/1M | $3.20/1M |
| Blended (3:1) | $0.13/1M | $1.10/1M |
| Specifications | ||
| Organization | Allen Institute for AI | Alibaba |
| Release Date | Nov 20, 2025 | Feb 24, 2026 |
| Performance & Speed | ||
| Throughput | — | 164.9 tok/s |
| TTFT | — | 1049ms |
| Latency | — | 1049ms |
| Composite Indices | ||
| Value Score | 100.0 | 18.1 |
| Reasoning Score | 26.2 | 41.7 |
| Intelligence | 2.8 | 27.6 |
| Coding | — | 43.3 |
| Math | 41.3 | — |
| Standard Benchmarks | ||
| GPQA | 40.0% | 82.7% |
| MMLU Pro | 52.2% | — |
| HLE | 5.8% | 14.8% |
| LiveCodeBench | 26.6% | — |
| AIME 2025 | 41.3% | — |
| SciCode | 10.3% | 35.6% |
| LCR | 0.0% | 56.0% |
| IFBench | 32.8% | 50.8% |
| TAU-bench v2 | 12.6% | 84.5% |
| TerminalBench Hard | 0.0% | 29.5% |
Key Takeaways
Olmo 3 7B Instruct offers the best value at $0.10/1M,making it ideal for high-volume applications and cost-conscious projects.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) has the strongest reasoning profile with a 41.7 reasoning score,combining the available reasoning-heavy benchmarks.
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning) reaches a 43.3 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
- Cost-sensitive applications
- High-volume processing
Qwen3.5 122B A10B (Non-reasoning)
- Complex reasoning tasks
- Research & analysis
- Code generation
- Software development
Recommended Comparisons
Popular alternatives
