Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Full profiles: Dola Seed 2.0 Pro (ByteDance) and GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, GPT-6.1 Sol is ahead of Dola Seed 2.0 Pro on quality (67.2 vs 58.5 on the BenchLeader Index). GPT-6.1 Sol leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5 on the BenchLeader Index and GPT-6.1 Sol scores 67.2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- GPT-6.1 Sol costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 8 benchmarks both models have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 8 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro benchmarks 
GPT-6.1 Sol benchmarks Which to pick for…
The pick's numbers come first. Category scores on the BenchLeader scale (50 is the average model, 15 points one standard deviation). High confidence means a lead of half a standard deviation or more; under one point is called either.
| Use case | Pick | Why | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | GPT-6.1 Sol | 72 vs 65 category score; Arena Coding 1537 vs 1514 | Medium |
| Maths | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 63 category score; Arena Maths 1513 vs 1449 | High |
| Reasoning | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 65 category score; Arena Hard Prompts 1504 vs 1480 | High |
| Images and other media | GPT-6.1 Sol | 66 vs 61 category score; Arena Vision 1288 vs 1274 | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | GPT-6.1 Sol | 67 vs 64 on Arena votes | Medium |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 67.2 vs 58.5.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in coding, human preference, maths, multimodal, reasoning, agents & tools, knowledge, long context.
At a glance
| Spec | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | ByteDance | OpenAI |
| Released | 14 Feb 2026 | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | – | 1,050,000 |
| Compared at | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | – | $2.00 / $10.00 / $0.100 |
Category by category
Category scores on the BenchLeader scale: 50 is the average evaluated model, 15 points is one standard deviation. A gap under one point is called level.
| Category | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 64.5 | 73.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Coding | 65.0 | 71.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Agents & tools | – | 64.4 | not comparable |
| Maths | 62.7 | 72.8 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Knowledge | – | 73.0 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 64.2 | 67.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Multimodal | 61.3 | 65.9 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Long context | – | 66.4 | not comparable |
Where sources disagree
Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro leads 0, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 8. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Sol ahead.
| Overall index | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 58.5 | 67.2 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Arena Text | 1456 | 1480 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Each publisher runs its own tasks, harnesses and effort settings, so their overall verdicts can differ; BenchLeader reconciles them on one scale. † measured at another effort setting of the same model (the publisher did not test the one compared here).
Price, speed and latency
List prices blended at three input tokens per output token. Per-task prices use the token counts on the methodology page; suite cost is what Artificial Analysis paid to run its whole Intelligence Index.
| Measure | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | – | $4.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | – / – | $2.00 / $10.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | – | $0.100 |
| Price per task: chat reply | – | $0.0038 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | – | $0.030 |
| Price per task: code edit | – | $0.027 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | – | $0.160 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | – | $0.0060 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | – | $1.27 |
| Output speed | – | 79 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | – | 249.5 s |
| Time to a complete answer | – | 255.8 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Dola Seed 2.0 Pro scores 58.5. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) scores 67.2 and takes 249 s to its first answer token; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) scores 64.3 in 97 s, GPT-6.1 Sol (high) scores 64.0 in 28 s. Higher effort means more thinking before the answer: better scores, longer waits and more tokens billed. How reasoning effort changes scores and cost.
Every benchmark
114 benchmarks, grouped by category; each name links to the board and its leaders. † measured at another effort setting of the same model, shown for reference and not counted as a win.
| Metric | Publisher | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 58.5 | 67.2 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 65.0 | 71.6 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 64.2 | 67.1 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 62.7 | 72.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 61.3 | 65.9 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 64.5 | 73.2 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 64.4 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | – | 73.0 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | – | 66.4 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | – | $4.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | – | 79 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | – | 249.5 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | – | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1480 | 1504 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 92.6%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 92.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.9% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 58.8% |
| ARC-AGI-1 | ARC Prize | – | 96.5% |
| ARC-AGI-2 | ARC Prize | – | 94.2% |
| ARC-AGI-3 | ARC Prize | – | 96.2% |
| CritPt | Artificial Analysis | – | 31.7% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 68.5% |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | – | 46.4% |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 68.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 80.0% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 62.8% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 96.5% |
| Coding | |||
| SciCode | SciCode | – | 54.2% |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | – | 50.2%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1514 | 1537 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1752 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 96.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 80.4% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 96.9% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 65.1% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 77.3% |
Show all 114 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Dola Seed 2.0 Pro | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 3.0% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 43.5% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 88.9% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 2743.8 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 56.1% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 78.6%† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 49.1% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 40.6% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | – | 58.2% |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 60.0% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 13.6 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | – | 68.7%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | – | 93.3%† |
| LiveBench Agentic Coding | LiveBench | – | 54.5% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | – | 62.3%† |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | – | 54.8% |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 1608 |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 50.0% |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | – | 39.3% |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | – | 52.0% |
| Finance Agent v2.1 | Vals AI | – | 61.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 6.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | – | 38.5% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | – | 28.3% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 50.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | – | 21.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 55.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 52.9% |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1250 |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 64.9% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 31.0% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 6.9% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 1555 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 58.1% |
| FACTS Search | – | 88.2%† | |
| Maths | |||
| FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 93.7% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 100.0% |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 100.0% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | – | 99.0%† |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | – | 96.8% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1449 | 1513 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 73.9% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 82.7%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | – | 83.5%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 82.7% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 42.0 |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | – | 46.2%† |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | – | 47.9%† |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | – | 79.6% |
| ClaimBench | Vals AI | – | 100.0% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | – | 70.8% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 71.1% |
| MedCode | Vals AI | – | 48.8% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | – | 86.5% |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 59.3% |
| EBR-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 54.3% |
| GDP.pdf | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 35.0% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: accuracy | Artificial Analysis | – | 61.8% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | – | 48.1% |
| HealthBench Professional (AA) | OpenAI | – | 65.1% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 74.2% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 82.0%† |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1435 | 1485 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1456 | 1480 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1272† |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1403 | 1453 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1449 | 1483 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1452 | 1489 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1274 | 1288 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | – | 82.1%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 86.0% |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 90.5% |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 1369 |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 1119 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 83.0% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | – | 38.3% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 168.4† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | – | 84.1%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 81.6% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | – | 54.5 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 51.8 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 348.5 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | – | 63.9 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | – | 55.8% |
| Vals RSI Index | Vals AI | – | 26.6% |
| Vals Science Index | Vals AI | – | 59.6% |
| Vals Router Index | Vals AI | – | 63.9%† |
Data as of 2026-10-29. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
What changed
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 5 new results (AA Intelligence Index v5.0, AA Progress Index v1, HLE-Diamond (AA)…); 3 score revisions; cost per task moved from $0.72/M to $1.27/M (76% up).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 10 new results (ClaimBench, Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1…).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): BenchLeader Index 67.9 → 67.4.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 5 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 new results (LMCA, DTBench).
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro: BenchLeader Index 59.1 → 58.6.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 new results (ProgramBench, Terminal-Bench Science); 1 score revision.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 3 new results (ALE-Bench, GDP.pdf, Arena Search); 4 score revisions.
Related comparisons
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6 Astra
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Fable 5
- Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs Claude Fable 5
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol: questions
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Dola Seed 2.0 Pro?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 67.2 vs 58.5. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is ahead overall as of 29 Oct 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Is Dola Seed 2.0 Pro or GPT-6.1 Sol better for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (72 vs 65 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena Coding, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1514 for Dola Seed 2.0 Pro against 1537 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Dola Seed 2.0 Pro vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Across the 8 benchmarks both have, Dola Seed 2.0 Pro leads 0, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 8. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Sol ahead.
- When was GPT-6.1 Sol released?
- GPT-6.1 Sol was released on 29 Sept 2026.