o3 vs Qwen3-Max: which model should you choose?
We compared o3 and Qwen3-Max on price, context window and 12 benchmarks. o3 has the stronger average benchmark score; o3 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis.
o3
o3 is a frontier model from OpenAI. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $16.80 per million input tokens and $81.80 per million output tokens, and averages 84.5 across the index's benchmark suite.
- Input
- $16.80 / 1M
- Output
- $81.80 / 1M
- Context
- 400,000
- Avg score
- 84.5
- Open weights
- No
Qwen3-Max
Qwen3-Max is a frontier model from Alibaba Cloud. It offers a 400,000-token context window, costs $17.37 per million input tokens and $94.30 per million output tokens, and averages 84.4 across the index's benchmark suite.
- Input
- $17.37 / 1M
- Output
- $94.30 / 1M
- Context
- 400,000
- Avg score
- 84.4
- Open weights
- No
Specification comparison
| Spec | o3 | Qwen3-Max | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Input price / 1M | $16.80 | $17.37 | A |
| Output price / 1M | $81.80 | $94.30 | A |
| Context window | 400,000 | 400,000 | Tie |
| Max output | 4,096 | 4,096 | Tie |
| Average score | 84.5 | 84.4 | A |
| Arena Elo | 1449.0 | 1449.2 | B |
| Open weights | No | No | Tie |
Benchmark comparison
o3 wins 5, Qwen3-Max wins 7, and 0 benchmarks are tied. The table shows the modelled score for each model and the gap.
| Benchmark | o3 | Qwen3-Max | Gap | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU-Pro | 86.9 | 84.0 | 2.9 | o3 |
| GPQA Diamond | 78.3 | 82.3 | 4.0 | Qwen3-Max |
| SWE-bench Verified | 72.9 | 73.3 | 0.4 | Qwen3-Max |
| HumanEval | 89.8 | 88.5 | 1.3 | o3 |
| MATH-500 | 87.9 | 89.7 | 1.8 | Qwen3-Max |
| AIME 2025 | 84.4 | 81.1 | 3.3 | o3 |
| LiveCodeBench | 80.7 | 82.2 | 1.5 | Qwen3-Max |
| IFEval | 88.7 | 92.5 | 3.8 | Qwen3-Max |
| TruthfulQA | 84.6 | 83.4 | 1.2 | o3 |
| HellaSwag | 92.7 | 92.9 | 0.2 | Qwen3-Max |
| MMMU | 82.3 | 78.7 | 3.6 | o3 |
| Arena Elo | 1449.0 | 1449.2 | 0.2 | Qwen3-Max |
Price analysis
On a blended 3:1 input-to-output basis, o3 costs about $33.05 per million tokens and Qwen3-Max costs about $36.60. o3 is roughly 10% cheaper than Qwen3-Max. At high volume, that gap compounds quickly, so price should carry real weight unless the quality difference is decisive.
Both models list a 400,000-token context window. That is enough for long documents, large codebases and multi-step agent traces.
Verdict
Across 12 shared benchmarks, o3 wins 5, Qwen3-Max wins 7, and 0 are tied. On the index average, o3 leads Qwen3-Max by 0.1 points (84.5 versus 84.4).
The price picture favours o3. The context picture is effectively a tie. Those two dimensions often matter more than a few benchmark points once a model is good enough for the task.
If you need a single default, start with o3 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.
Choose o3 if
- You want the higher average benchmark score in this index.
- Unit cost matters and you want the cheaper blended price.
Choose Qwen3-Max if
- You prefer Alibaba Cloud's tooling or already use it.
FAQ
Is o3 better than Qwen3-Max?
On the index average, o3 leads Qwen3-Max by 0.1 points (84.5 versus 84.4). The better choice depends on price, context and your task. o3 wins 5 benchmarks, Qwen3-Max wins 7.
Which is cheaper, o3 or Qwen3-Max?
o3 is cheaper on a blended 3:1 basis at about $33.05 per million tokens, versus $36.60 for Qwen3-Max.
Which has the larger context window?
Both models list a 400,000-token context window.
Are these models open weights?
o3 is proprietary; Qwen3-Max is proprietary.
Which should I choose for production?
If you need a single default, start with o3 for quality-sensitive work, and check whether its price holds at your expected volume before committing.