Model Comparison

o1 vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

o1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 66.0x cheaper per token.

Want to compare interactively?Try the playground

Performance Benchmarks

Comparative analysis across standard metrics

3 benchmarks

o1 outperforms in 3 benchmarks (GPQA, MMLU, SimpleQA), while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is better at 0 benchmarks.

o1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks.

Tue May 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Arena Performance

Human preference votes

Pricing Analysis

Price comparison per million tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs less

For input processing, o1 ($15.00/1M tokens) is 75.0x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.20/1M tokens).

For output processing, o1 ($60.00/1M tokens) is 60.6x more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking ($0.99/1M tokens).

In conclusion, o1 is more expensive than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.*

* Using a 3:1 ratio of input to output tokens

Lowest available price from all providers

Tue May 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input tokens$15.00

Output tokens$60.00

Best providerAzure

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input tokens$0.20

Output tokens$0.99

Best providerNovita

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue→

Context Window

Maximum input and output token capacity

o1 accepts 200,000 input tokens compared to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking's 131,072 tokens. o1 can generate longer responses up to 100,000 tokens, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is limited to 32,768 tokens.

Input200,000 tokens

Output100,000 tokens

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Input131,072 tokens

Output32,768 tokens

Tue May 12 2026 • llm-stats.com

Input Capabilities

Supported data types and modalities

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports multimodal inputs, whereas o1 does not.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking can handle both text and other forms of data like images, making it suitable for multimodal applications.

o1

Text

Images

Audio

Video

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Text

Images

Audio

Video

License

Usage and distribution terms

o1 is licensed under a proprietary license, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking uses Apache 2.0.

License differences may affect how you can use these models in commercial or open-source projects.

Proprietary

Closed source

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Apache 2.0

Open weights

Release Timeline

When each model was launched

o1 was released on 2024-12-17, while Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking was released on 2025-09-22.

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 9 months newer than o1.

Dec 17, 2024

1.4 years ago

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Sep 22, 2025

7 months ago

9mo newer

Knowledge Cutoff

When training data ends

Neither model specifies a knowledge cutoff date.

Unable to compare the recency of their training data.

No cutoff dates available

Provider Availability

o1 is available from Azure, OpenAI. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is available from Novita, DeepInfra.

o1

Azure

Input Price:Input: $15.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $60.00/1M

OpenAI

Input Price:Input: $15.00/1MOutput Price:Output: $60.00/1M

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

Novita

Input Price:Input: $0.20/1MOutput Price:Output: $1.00/1M

Deepinfra

Input Price:Input: $0.29/1MOutput Price:Output: $0.99/1M

* Prices shown are per million tokens

Outputs Comparison

Notice missing or incorrect data?Start an Issue discussion→

Key Takeaways

o1

View details

OpenAI

Larger context window (200,000 tokens)

Higher GPQA score (78.0% vs 74.4%)

Higher MMLU score (91.8% vs 87.6%)

Higher SimpleQA score (47.0% vs 23.9%)

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

View details

Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team

Supports multimodal inputs

Less expensive input tokens

Less expensive output tokens

Has open weights

Detailed Comparison

AI Model Comparison Table
Feature	o1	Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking

FAQ

Common questions about o1 vs Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking.

Which is better, o1 or Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

o1 significantly outperforms across most benchmarks. o1 is made by OpenAI and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is made by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team. The best choice depends on your use case — compare their benchmark scores, pricing, and capabilities above.

How does o1 compare to Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking in benchmarks?

o1 scores GSM8k: 97.1%, MATH: 96.4%, GPQA Physics: 92.8%, MMLU: 91.8%, MGSM: 89.3%. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking scores DocVQAtest: 95.0%, ScreenSpot: 94.7%, MMLU-Redux: 90.9%, MMBench-V1.1: 88.9%, MMLU: 87.6%.

Is o1 cheaper than Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is 75.0x cheaper for input tokens. o1 costs $15.00/M input and $60.00/M output via azure. Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking costs $0.20/M input and $0.99/M output via novita.

What are the context window sizes for o1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

o1 supports 200K tokens and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking supports 131K tokens. A larger context window lets you process longer documents, conversations, or codebases in a single request.

What are the main differences between o1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

Key differences include context window (200K vs 131K), input pricing ($15.00 vs $0.20/M), multimodal support (no vs yes), licensing (Proprietary vs Apache 2.0). See the full comparison above for benchmark-by-benchmark results.

Who makes o1 and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking?

o1 is developed by OpenAI and Qwen3 VL 30B A3B Thinking is developed by Alibaba Cloud / Qwen Team.