LLMBenchmark.ai

Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

o3 Pro vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B

Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

o3 ProOpenAI
Coding
84.9
Overall
21.9
Output $/M
$80.00
3
Qwen3.5-122B-A10BQwen
Coding
22.9
Overall
17.7
Output $/M
$2.08
1
vs boards won of 4 shared

Decision reading

o3 Pro scores 84.9 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 22.9 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking.

Pick o3 Pro when what matters is AA Intelligence Index or DTBench, where it leads; pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B when output tokens cost 38.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 262K against 200K tokens.

Shared results
4
o3 Pro only
7
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B only
47
Like-for-like categories
3 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
o3 Pro 84.9 from 1 benchmark, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 22.9 from 1 benchmark.
Widest category
General, 4.5 points apart on average over 2 shared benchmarks.
Widest single gap
LMCA: o3 Pro 38.5% against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 32.2%, 6.3 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
o3 Pro $80.00 against Qwen3.5-122B-A10B $2.08 per million output tokens, 38.5x apart.
Context window
o3 Pro takes 200K tokens, Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 262K.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
Categoryo3 ProBarsQwen3.5-122B-A10BTies
Intelligence10
Reasoning01
General20
All shared boards31
CodingDirectional onlyFour of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index10 boards, none shared
Coding benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Aider polyglot84.9%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1361Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
AA Coding IndexNot measured43.3Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
SciCodeNot measured39.7%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured31.1%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
WeirdML58.2%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
LMArena Text: codingNot measured1436Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: software and ITNot measured1436Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1351Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 28 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
Intelligence benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
AA Intelligence Index21.917.7o3 Pro
Epoch Capabilities Index147.3Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index1 board, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
τ²-Bench TelecomNot measured93.6%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 38 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Reasoning benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)84.5%85.7%Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)Not measured25.2%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
ARC-AGI59.3%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
ARC-AGI-24.9%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured17.0%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard promptsNot measured1421Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: expertNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts in EnglishNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1261Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index2 boards, none shared
Math benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena Text: mathNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: mathematical workNot measured1431Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 11 boards here
KnowledgeDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
Knowledge benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
LMArena Text: scienceNot measured1432Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcareNot measured1423Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: legal and governmentNot measured1422Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: business and financeNot measured1414Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 13 boards here
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Web design benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Neither model has a result on 9 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index20
General benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
IFBenchNot measured75.7%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)Not measured76.3%Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
DTBench86.9%84.3%o3 Pro
LMCA38.5%32.2%o3 Pro
Fiction.LiveBench97.2%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
Creative writing (Lech Mazur)84.4%Not measuredOnly o3 Pro measured
LMArena TextNot measured1417Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: instruction followingNot measured1399Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: creative writingNot measured1368Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena VisionNot measured1244Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: EnglishNot measured1428Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: non-EnglishNot measured1401Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: ChineseNot measured1463Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: GermanNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: JapaneseNot measured1367Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: KoreanNot measured1353Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: FrenchNot measured1443Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: SpanishNot measured1425Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: RussianNot measured1400Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: PolishNot measured1398Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: multi-turnNot measured1416Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: longer queriesNot measured1410Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: writing and languageNot measured1387Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Text: entertainment and mediaNot measured1366Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: EnglishNot measured1249Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: ChineseNot measured1301Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1251Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: humorNot measured1243Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1220Only Qwen3.5-122B-A10B measured
Neither model has a result on the other 17 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
Benchmarko3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10BLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

o3 Pro$0.060Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.0013Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

o3 Pro$1.24Fits in one request
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.019Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

o3 Pro$4.80Exceeds the context window
Qwen3.5-122B-A10B$0.073Fits in one request

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of o3 Pro and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B
SpecificationOpenAI o3 ProQwen3.5-122B-A10B
MakerOpenAIQwen
WeightsNo public weights listedOpen weights
ReleasedJune 10, 2025February 25, 2026
Context window200K262K
Input $/Mtok$20.00$0.26
Output $/Mtok$80.00$2.08
Coding index84.922.9
Independent measurements behind it11
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is o3 Pro better than Qwen3.5-122B-A10B for coding?

o3 Pro scores 84.9 and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B 22.9 on the Vibe Coding Index, but no coding benchmark measured both, so the gap is directional, not a ranking. Pick o3 Pro when what matters is AA Intelligence Index or DTBench, where it leads; pick Qwen3.5-122B-A10B when output tokens cost 38.5x less, or when the context window is larger, 262K against 200K tokens.

Which is cheaper, o3 Pro or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

o3 Pro costs $20.00 per million input tokens and $80.00 per million output tokens; Qwen3.5-122B-A10B costs $0.26 and $2.08. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, o3 Pro or Qwen3.5-122B-A10B?

Qwen3.5-122B-A10B, with 262K tokens against 200K.

How many benchmarks is the o3 Pro vs Qwen3.5-122B-A10B comparison based on?

4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. o3 Pro's coding index rests on 1 independent benchmark and Qwen3.5-122B-A10B's on 1. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next