Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Full profiles: Gemini 4 Carbon (Google) and GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, Gemini 4 Carbon and GPT-6.1 Sol are neck and neck on quality (65.1 vs 67.2 on the BenchLeader Index, inside the ±6.5 margin), and GPT-6.1 Sol is 2.0× cheaper at $4.00 vs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Gemini 4 Carbon for reasoning (79 vs 73) and knowledge (76 vs 73) and fast first answers (103.1 s vs 251.4 s); choose GPT-6.1 Sol for long context (66 vs 65).
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- Gemini 4 Carbon scores 65.1 on the BenchLeader Index and GPT-6.1 Sol scores 67.2 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- Gemini 4 Carbon costs $8.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- GPT-6.1 Sol costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 25 benchmarks both models have, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 19 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
Gemini 4 Carbon 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 | Either | 72 vs 72 category score; FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) 40.6% vs 40.6% | Either |
| Reasoning | Gemini 4 Carbon | 79 vs 73 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 69.1% vs 58.8% | Medium |
| Knowledge | Gemini 4 Carbon | 76 vs 73 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 53.5 vs 42.0 | Medium |
| Long documents | GPT-6.1 Sol | 66 vs 65 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.0% vs 79.3% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | – | Only GPT-6.1 Sol has an Arena rating (67 category score) | Not comparable |
| Lowest cost | GPT-6.1 Sol | $4.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.160 vs $0.320 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Gemini 4 Carbon | 103.1 s (Gemini 4 Carbon (high)) vs 251.4 s (GPT-6.1 Sol (max)) to the first answer token | – |
| High volume on a budget | Neither flagship | A smaller model is usually the better fit: Cheapest good LLMs, Fastest LLMs | – |
Key differences
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) and GPT-6.1 Sol (max) are neck and neck on quality (65.1 vs 67.2, within the ±6.5 margin).
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) is stronger in coding, knowledge, reasoning.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in long context, agents & tools, human preference, maths, multimodal.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is 2.0× cheaper ($4.00 vs $8.00 per 1M blended).
At a glance
| Spec | Gemini 4 Carbon | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | |
| Released | 28 Oct 2026 | 29 Sept 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,000,000 | 1,050,000 |
| Compared at | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 / – | $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 | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 78.9 | 73.1 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Coding | 71.7 | 71.5 | level |
| Agents & tools | – | 64.4 | not comparable |
| Maths | – | 72.8 | not comparable |
| Knowledge | 75.8 | 72.9 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Human preference | – | 67.1 | not comparable |
| Multimodal | – | 65.9 | not comparable |
| Long context | 64.5 | 66.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Where sources disagree
Across the 25 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 19, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 6. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Carbon ahead.
| Overall index | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 65.1 | 67.2 | neck and neck |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 59.4 | 54.5 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
| Vals Index | 70.4 | 63.9 | Gemini 4 Carbon |
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 | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $8.00 | $4.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $4.00 / $20.00 | $2.00 / $10.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | – | $0.100 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0076 | $0.0038 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.060 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.054 | $0.027 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.320 | $0.160 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.012 | $0.0060 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $7.76 | $1.27 |
| Output speed | 100 tok/s | 83 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 103.1 s | 251.4 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 108.1 s | 257.5 s |
Per token is not per task: on Artificial Analysis' full suite Gemini 4 Carbon (high) cost $7.76 and GPT-6.1 Sol (max) $1.27, because Gemini 4 Carbon (high) used about 3.0× as many tokens for the same work, which a per-token price hides.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Gemini 4 Carbon (high) scores 65.1 and takes 103 s to its first answer token. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) scores 67.2 and takes 251 s to its first answer token; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) scores 64.2 in 98 s, GPT-6.1 Sol (high) scores 63.9 in 34 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
113 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 | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 65.1 | 67.2 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 71.7 | 71.5 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 75.8 | 72.9 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 64.5 | 66.4 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 78.9 | 73.1 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | – | 64.4 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | – | 67.1 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | – | 72.8 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 65.9 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $8.00 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 100 tok/s | 83 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 103.1 s | 251.4 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,000,000 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1504 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 92.6%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 92.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 60.4% | 52.9% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 69.1% | 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 | 36.0% | 31.7% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 63.0% | 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 | 64.2% | 54.2% |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | – | 50.2%† |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | – | 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 113 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Carbon (high) | 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 | 89.1% | 88.9% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 2743.8 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 65.2% | 56.1% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 78.6%† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 48.5% | 49.1% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 40.6% | 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 | Artificial Analysis | – | 54.8% |
| 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 | 67.2% | 61.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 17.5% | 6.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 55.8% | 38.5% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | – | 28.3% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 50.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 48.9% | 21.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 63.1% | 55.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 52.9% |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1250 |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | 16484.2† | – |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 77.8% | 64.9% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 28.4% | 31.0% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 6.9% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1609 | 1555 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 64.8% | 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) | – | 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 | 53.5 | 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 | 76.5% | 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 | 58.3% | 61.8% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 88.6% | 48.1% |
| Instruction following | |||
| LiveBench Language | LiveBench | – | 90.1% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | – | 74.2% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | – | 82.0%† |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1485 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1480 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1272† |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1453 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1483 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1489 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1288 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | – | 82.1%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 86.0% |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 90.5% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 58.6%† | – |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 1119 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 79.3% | 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 | 59.4 | 54.5 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 51.8 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 351.6 | 348.5 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 70.4 | 63.9 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 66.3% | 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): BenchLeader Index 67.9 → 67.4.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 10 new results (ClaimBench, Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1…).
- 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).
- 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.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 score revision.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 4 Carbon 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
- Gemini 4 Argon vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol: questions
- Is Gemini 4 Carbon better than GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Gemini 4 Carbon (high) and GPT-6.1 Sol (max) are neck and neck on quality (65.1 vs 67.2, within the ±6.5 margin). The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; the two are within the margin of error as of 29 Oct 2026, so check the category scores for your use.
- Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- GPT-6.1 Sol is cheaper today: $4.00 against $8.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol better for coding?
- They are level in coding (72 vs 72 on the category index). On FrontierCode 2.0 (AA), the top shared coding benchmark, it is 40.6% for Gemini 4 Carbon against 40.6% for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- Which is faster, Gemini 4 Carbon or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Gemini 4 Carbon streams faster (100 vs 83 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Which is better for long documents?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 65). Both take about 1.1M tokens: Gemini 4 Carbon 1,000,000, GPT-6.1 Sol 1,050,000.
More questions (3)
- Which has lower latency?
- Gemini 4 Carbon answers first: 103.1 s against 251.4 s to the first answer token, as Artificial Analysis measures it. Reasoning effort drives most of this: a higher setting thinks longer before it answers.
- Do independent benchmarks agree on Gemini 4 Carbon vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Across the 25 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Carbon leads 19, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 6. Every overall index that rates both puts Gemini 4 Carbon ahead.
- When was Gemini 4 Carbon released?
- Gemini 4 Carbon was released on 28 Oct 2026.