o1 vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
o1 and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct are closely matched at 20.9 and 21.0 on the LLM Stats Score. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is 55.3x cheaper per token.
OpenAI · Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team · Updated for 2026
Which is better?
o1 and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct are closely matched on the overall LLM Stats Score at 20.9 and 21.0.
In the 3 individual benchmarks reported for both models, Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct wins 3; this is a narrower head-to-head signal than the composite indexes.
On price, Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is roughly 55.3x cheaper per token on a blended 3:1 input/output basis, which adds up quickly at production volume.
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct also accepts a larger context window (262,144 input tokens), making it the stronger choice for long documents and large codebases.
Based on current LLM Stats indexes, shared benchmarks, pricing, and model metadata for 2026.
Choose o1
- you want predictable pricing at $15.00/M input and $60.00/M output
Choose Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
- you value its reported benchmark strengths — it wins 3 of 3 exact shared results
- cost matters — it's about 55.3x cheaper per token
- you process long inputs — it offers a 262,144 token context window
- you want the most recent training data — it shipped Jan 2025
- you need open weights you can self-host or fine-tune
At a glance
The differences that matter most.
Capability indexes
Additional strengths measured across groups of related public benchmarks
Individual benchmarks
19 reported for o1 · 10 for Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
o1 outperforms in 0 benchmarks, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is better at 3 benchmarks (SWE-Bench Verified, TAU-bench Airline, TAU-bench Retail).
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.
Human preference
Blind head-to-head votes and playground preference scores
Pricing Analysis
Price comparison per million tokens
For input processing, o1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 50.0x more expensive than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct ($0.30/1M tokens).
For output processing, o1 ($60.00/1M tokens) is 60.0x more expensive than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct ($1.00/1M tokens).
In conclusion, o1 is more expensive than Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.*
* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens
Context Window
Maximum input and output token capacity
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct accepts 262,144 input tokens compared to o1's 200,000 tokens. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct can generate longer responses up to 262,144 tokens, while o1 is limited to 100,000 tokens.
License
Usage and distribution terms
o1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct uses Apache 2.0.
License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.
Proprietary
Closed source
Apache 2.0
Open weights
Release Timeline
When each model was launched
o1 was released on 2024-12-17, while Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct was released on 2025-01-31.
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is 2 months newer than o1.
Dec 17, 2024
1.8 years ago
Jan 31, 2025
1.7 years ago
1mo newerKnowledge Cutoff
When training data ends
Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.
Unable to compare the recency of their training data.
Provider Availability
o1 is available from Azure, OpenAI. Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct is available from DeepInfra.
o1
Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct
Outputs Comparison
Judge for yourself.
Run your own prompts against o1 and Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct side-by-side, then vote on the output you prefer.
FAQ
Common questions about o1 vs Qwen3-Coder 480B A35B Instruct.