o3 vs Qwen3.6-35B-A3B
o3 (2025) and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B (2026) are agentic coding models from OpenAI and Alibaba. o3 ships a 128K-token context window, while Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ships a 262K-token context window. On SWE-bench Verified, Qwen3.6-35B-A3B leads by 1.7 pts. This comparison covers specs, pricing, capabilities, benchmarks, provider availability, and production fit. It focuses on practical selection signals rather than broad model-family marketing. The goal is to make the tradeoff clear before deeper testing.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is safer overall; choose o3 when coding workflow support matters.
Specs
| Released | 2025-03-31 | 2026-04-16 |
| Context window | 128K | 262K |
| Parameters | — | 35 |
| Architecture | decoder only | moe |
| License | Unknown | Apache 2.0 |
| Knowledge cutoff | - | - |
Pricing and availability
| o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Input price | $1/1M tokens | - |
| Output price | $4/1M tokens | - |
| Providers | - |
Capabilities
| o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B | |
|---|---|---|
| Vision | ||
| Multimodal | ||
| Reasoning | ||
| Function calling | ||
| Tool use | ||
| Structured outputs | ||
| Code execution |
Benchmarks
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3.6-35B-A3B |
|---|---|---|
| SWE-bench Verified | 71.7 | 73.4 |
| Google-Proof Q&A | 87.7 | 86.0 |
| LiveCodeBench | 79.1 | 80.4 |
Deep dive
On shared benchmark coverage, SWE-bench Verified has o3 at 71.7 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at 73.4, with Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ahead by 1.7 points; Google-Proof Q&A has o3 at 87.7 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at 86, with o3 ahead by 1.7 points; LiveCodeBench has o3 at 79.1 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B at 80.4, with Qwen3.6-35B-A3B ahead by 1.3 points. The largest visible gap is 1.7 points on SWE-bench Verified, which matters most when that benchmark mirrors your workload. Treat isolated benchmark wins as directional, because provider routing, prompt style, and tool access can move real application results.
The capability footprint differs most on multimodal input: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, reasoning mode: o3, function calling: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, tool use: Qwen3.6-35B-A3B, structured outputs: o3, and code execution: o3. Both models share the core language-model surface, so the practical split is not just feature count. Use those differences to decide whether the page is about raw model quality, agentic coding support, multimodal ingestion, or predictable structured API behavior.
Pricing coverage is uneven: o3 has $1/1M input tokens and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has no token price sourced yet. Provider availability is 3 tracked routes versus 0. Treat unknown pricing as an integration gap, then verify the route you will actually call before estimating production spend.
Choose o3 when coding workflow support and broader provider choice are central to the workload. Choose Qwen3.6-35B-A3B when coding workflow support and larger context windows are more important. For production, rerun your own prompts through the exact provider, region, and tool stack you plan to ship.
FAQ
Which has a larger context window, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B supports 262K tokens, while o3 supports 128K tokens. That gap matters most for long documents, large codebases, retrieval-heavy agents, and conversations where earlier context must remain visible. Use this as a quick comparison signal, then confirm the provider-specific limits before committing to production.
Is o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B open source?
o3 is listed under Unknown. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is listed under Apache 2.0. License labels affect whether you can self-host, redistribute weights, or rely only on hosted APIs, so confirm the upstream license before deployment.
Which is better for multimodal input, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the clearer documented multimodal input signal in this comparison. If multimodal input is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for reasoning mode, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
o3 has the clearer documented reasoning mode signal in this comparison. If reasoning mode is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Which is better for function calling, o3 or Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B has the clearer documented function calling signal in this comparison. If function calling is mission-critical, validate it against the provider endpoint because model-level support and API-level exposure can differ.
Where can I run o3 and Qwen3.6-35B-A3B?
o3 is available on OpenAI API, OpenRouter, and OpenAI Batch API. Qwen3.6-35B-A3B is available on the tracked providers still being sourced. Provider coverage can affect latency, region availability, compliance posture, and fallback options.
Continue comparing
Last reviewed: 2026-04-24. Data sourced from public model cards and provider documentation.