Independently agent-testedAnthropic · OpenAI · Gemini · Grok
Try Tested®

Bench test · AI Search

Qwen vs OpenAI o1

Same rack, same rubric, four independent agents. Here's how they measure up — and which we'd pick.

QwenOpenAI o1
consensus
score7.7/10
score7.8/10
agents won1 / 43 / 4
fromCustomCustom
free tiernono
categoryAI SearchAI Search

Agent panel — head to head

Anthropic7.29.2
OpenAI7.58.5
Gemini8.58.9
Grok7.54.5

Qwen

  • Free access to search-enhanced conversations
  • Strong multilingual capabilities
  • Current information through live search
  • Limited availability outside Asia
  • Smaller user base compared to ChatGPT/Claude
  • Less established track record
Conversational chat interfaceReal-time web search integrationMultilingual supportContext-aware responsesInformation synthesis from multiple sourcesExtended knowledge cutoff

OpenAI o1

  • Excellent at complex reasoning and analysis
  • Provides transparent problem-solving process
  • Slower response time due to extended thinking
  • Higher computational cost than standard models
Extended thinking capability for complex reasoningMulti-step problem decompositionHigh accuracy on STEM and logic problemsDetailed step-by-step explanationsSuperior performance on benchmarks

Custom · no free tier

Try Qwen

Custom · no free tier

Try OpenAI o1

Verdict

OpenAI o1 takes it — 7.8 to 7.7 (a photo finish).

The panel gave OpenAI o1 the edge on 3 of 4 agents. It's close enough that Qwen is a fair pick if it fits your workflow better.