| Signal | o3 Deep Research | Delta | Qwen 3.5 397B |
|---|---|---|---|
Capabilities | 86 | +86 | |
Context window size | 84 | +84 | |
Output Capacity | 83 | +83 | |
Pricing Tier | 40 | +40 | |
Recency | 100 | +100 | |
Versatility | 67 | +67 | |
| Overall Result | 6 wins | of 6 | 0 wins |
0
days ranked higher
0
days
30
days ranked higher
OpenAI
Alibaba
Pricing unavailable
| Metric | o3 Deep Research | Qwen 3.5 397B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Score | 74 | 91 | Qwen 3.5 397B |
| Rank | #7 | #7 | -- |
| Quality Rank | #7 | #7 | -- |
| Adoption Rank | #7 | #8 | o3 Deep Research |
| Parameters | -- | -- | -- |
| Context Window | 200K | 131K | o3 Deep Research |
| Pricing | $10.00/$40.00/M | -- | -- |
| Signal Scores | |||
| Capabilities | 86 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
| Context window size | 84 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
| Output Capacity | 83 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
| Pricing Tier | 40 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
| Recency | 100 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
| Versatility | 67 | -- | o3 Deep Research |
Qwen 3.5 397B clearly outperforms o3 Deep Research with a significant 17-point lead. For most general use cases, Qwen 3.5 397B is the stronger choice. However, o3 Deep Research may still excel in niche scenarios.
Best for Quality
o3 Deep Research
Marginally better benchmark scores; both are excellent
Best for Reliability
o3 Deep Research
Higher uptime and faster response speeds
Best for Prototyping
o3 Deep Research
Stronger community support and better developer experience
Best for Production
o3 Deep Research
Wider enterprise adoption and proven at scale
by OpenAI
Qwen 3.5 397B currently scores higher (91 vs 74), but the best choice depends on your specific use case, budget, and requirements.
o3 Deep Research is ranked #7 and Qwen 3.5 397B is ranked #7. Rankings are based on a composite score from multiple signals including benchmarks, community sentiment, and adoption metrics.
Pricing information may not be available for both models. Check individual model pages for the latest pricing details.