o3 vs Qwen 2.5 72B
Side-by-side benchmark comparison across coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing.
o3 by OpenAI wins on 14 of 18 benchmarks against Qwen 2.5 72B by Qwen, which leads on 4. This head-to-head comparison covers coding, math, reasoning, speed, and pricing metrics from our benchmark data.
Category-by-Category Breakdown
General Intelligence: In general intelligence, o3 scores 1380 on Chatbot Arena ELO compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 1230, while o3 scores 84.0% on MMLU-Pro compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 72.0%, while o3 scores 86.0% on TruthfulQA compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 74.0%.
Coding: In coding, o3 scores 90.0% on HumanEval+ compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 80.0%, while o3 scores 69.1% on SWE-bench Verified compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 28.0%, while o3 scores 70.0% on LiveCodeBench compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 55.5%.
Math: In math, o3 scores 96.0% on MATH compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 83.1%, while o3 scores 98.5% on GSM8K compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 91.0%.
Reasoning: In reasoning, o3 scores 83.3% on GPQA Diamond compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 49.1%, while o3 scores 75.7% on ARC-AGI compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 12.0%, while o3 scores 95.8% on BBH compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 84.0%, while o3 scores 94.0% on Winogrande compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 86.0%.
Context: In context, o3 scores 200K on Context Length compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 33K.
Multimodal: In multimodal, o3 scores 86.8% on MathVista compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 67.5%.
Pricing Comparison
o3 costs $2.0/1M input tokens and $8.0/1M output tokens, while Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.36/1M input and $0.40/1M output. Qwen 2.5 72B is the more affordable option for API usage.
Speed Comparison
o3 generates output at 40 tok/s compared to Qwen 2.5 72B's 80 tok/s, and the time to first token is 800 ms for o3 versus 350 ms for Qwen 2.5 72B. Qwen 2.5 72B delivers faster throughput.
Verdict
For developers prioritizing coding and general intelligence and math, o3 has the edge. For those who value affordability and speed, Qwen 2.5 72B is the stronger choice.
View Individual Model Pages
o3 vs Qwen 2.5 72B — FAQ
Which is better, o3 or Qwen 2.5 72B?
o3 wins on more benchmarks overall (14 vs 4). However, the best choice depends on your specific needs — each model excels in different areas.
How does o3 compare to Qwen 2.5 72B for coding?
o3 is better for coding, scoring 69.1% on SWE-bench Verified compared to 28.0%. SWE-bench tests real-world software engineering by resolving actual GitHub issues.
Is o3 cheaper than Qwen 2.5 72B?
Yes, Qwen 2.5 72B is cheaper. o3 costs $2.0/1M input and $8.0/1M output tokens. Qwen 2.5 72B costs $0.36/1M input and $0.40/1M output tokens.
Which is faster, o3 or Qwen 2.5 72B?
Qwen 2.5 72B is faster, generating output at 80 tok/s compared to 40 tok/s. Faster output speed means shorter wait times for API responses.
What benchmarks does the o3 vs Qwen 2.5 72B comparison cover?
This comparison covers 18 benchmarks including Chatbot Arena ELO, MMLU-Pro, HumanEval+, MATH, TruthfulQA, GPQA Diamond, SWE-bench Verified, Output Speed, and more. Metrics span general intelligence, coding, math, reasoning, speed, and cost categories.