o1 vs Qwen3.6 35B A3B
Wins 1 of 8 areas
Following instructions
Wins 6 of 8 areas
Coding · Agents · Reasoning · Images and charts · Math · Long documents
Qwen3.6 35B A3B is the stronger all-rounder.o1 is better at following instructions.
Scores updated · 19 tests both models report · How we compare
Where each one wins
Tests won in each of the eight areas we test. Each piece is one test, so a longer bar means more evidence; grey means the two scored within a point of each other.
- CodingWriting and fixing software02Qwen3.6 35B A3B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- ReasoningHard problems that need careful thinking02Qwen3.6 35B A3B2 of 3 tests · 1 tie
- Images and chartsUnderstanding pictures, charts and video02Qwen3.6 35B A3B2 of 2 tests
- AgentsCarrying out multi-step tasks on its own01Qwen3.6 35B A3B1 of 1 test
- MathCompetition and research-level math01Qwen3.6 35B A3B1 of 1 test
- Long documentsFinding answers in very long texts01Qwen3.6 35B A3B1 of 1 test
- Following instructionsDoing exactly what it is asked10o11 of 1 test
- FactsGetting facts right instead of making them up11Even1 each
Agents, math, long documents and following instructions rest on a single test each.
What it costs
Prices per million tokens, roughly 750,000 words. The bars show the cost of a million tokens read plus a million written.
Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs 97% less for the same work.
The biggest differences
The tests each model wins by the widest margin, up to three each. Scores are out of 100.
Where Qwen3.6 35B A3B pulls ahead
- Fixes real GitHub issues in Python projectsSWE-bench Verified+32.1points ahead
- Hard command-line tasks in a real terminalTerminal-Bench Hard+21.9points ahead
- Avoids making up answers it doesn't knowAA-Omniscience · Non-hallucination+19.1points ahead
Where o1 pulls ahead
- Answers hard knowledge questions correctlyAA-Omniscience · Accuracy+15.7points ahead
- Follows unfamiliar, precisely checkable instructionsIFBench+5.9points ahead
Every test, side by side
All 19 tests both models report. The winning score is in its model's colour; marks a score checked independently.
CodingQwen3.6 35B A3B
- SWE-bench VerifiedQwen3.6 35B A3B by 32.141.373.4+32.1
- Terminal-Bench HardQwen3.6 35B A3B by 21.912.934.8+21.9
- SciCodetie35.836.6tie
ReasoningQwen3.6 35B A3B
- Humanity's Last ExamQwen3.6 35B A3B by 15.2722.2+15.2
- GPQA DiamondQwen3.6 35B A3B by 9.474.784.1+9.4
- CritPttie0.30.3tie
FactsEven
- AA-Omniscience · Non-hallucinationQwen3.6 35B A3B by 19.130.449.5+19.1
- AA-Omniscience · Accuracyo1 by 15.734.518.8+15.7
Images and chartsQwen3.6 35B A3B
Other results5 tests, not counted
Tests outside the eight areas. They are not counted above: several are summary scores built from other tests, or the same test under another name.
- τ²-Bench Telecom (AA run)Qwen3.6 35B A3B by 32.762.695.3+32.7
- AA Agentic Indexo1 by 16.131.115+16.1
- AA-Omniscienceo1 by 11.2-11.1-22.2+11.2
- AA IntelligenceQwen3.6 35B A3B by 315.218.2+3
- Artificial Analysis Coding IndexQwen3.6 35B A3B by 2.239.741.9+2.2
Questions people ask
Which is better, o1 or Qwen3.6 35B A3B?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B wins six of the eight areas we test: coding, agents, reasoning, images and charts, math and long documents. o1 wins following instructions. They are level on facts.
Which is better for coding?
Qwen3.6 35B A3B. It wins 2 of the 3 coding tests both models report; o1 wins none, and 1 is a tie.
Which is cheaper?
o1 costs $15.00 per million input tokens and $60.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.6 35B A3B costs $0.38 and $2.25. That makes Qwen3.6 35B A3B about 97% cheaper for the same work.
How do you compare the two?
We use the 19 benchmark tests both models have published scores on. The verdict counts the 14 tests in the eight capability areas, and a gap under one point (ten on rating-style scales) counts as a tie. The other 5 are listed but not counted, because several are summary scores or repeat a test. Each score is the one shown on the model's own page.