Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-6.1 Sol
Full profiles: Gemini 4 Hydrogen (Google) and GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 12 sources
As of 13 Nov 2026, GPT-6.1 Sol is ahead of Gemini 4 Hydrogen on quality (66.6 vs 63.4 on the BenchLeader Index), but Gemini 4 Hydrogen is 1.3× cheaper at $3.00 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended. Choose Gemini 4 Hydrogen for human preference (68 vs 67) and fast first answers (16.4 s vs 179.9 s), where it also streams 3×+ faster; choose GPT-6.1 Sol for maths (72 vs 68), knowledge (72 vs 69), and agents & tools (64 vs 62).
Key facts (as of 13 Nov 2026)
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen scores 63.4 on the BenchLeader Index and GPT-6.1 Sol scores 66.6 (BenchLeader, 13 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen costs $3.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 13 Nov 2026).
- GPT-6.1 Sol costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 13 Nov 2026).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen streams 3×+ faster than GPT-6.1 Sol (Artificial Analysis, 7-day median, 13 Nov 2026).
- Of the 20 benchmarks both models have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13 (BenchLeader, 13 Nov 2026).
- On Arena WebDev, Gemini 4 Hydrogen is rated 1704 and GPT-6.1 Sol 1743 (LMArena, as published by 13 Nov 2026).
Gemini 4 Hydrogen 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 | 71 vs 69 category score; Arena WebDev 1743 vs 1704 | Medium |
| Agents & tool use | GPT-6.1 Sol | 64 vs 62 category score; Terminal-Bench 60.9% vs 56.4% | Medium |
| Maths | GPT-6.1 Sol | 72 vs 68 category score; Arena Maths 1499 vs 1495 | Medium |
| Reasoning | GPT-6.1 Sol | 71 vs 70 category score; HLE-Diamond (AA) 58.8% vs 54.9% | Medium |
| Knowledge | GPT-6.1 Sol | 72 vs 69 category score; AA-Omniscience v1.1 42.0 vs 43.7 | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | 68 vs 67 on Arena votes | Medium |
| Lowest cost | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | $3.00 vs $4.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.120 vs $0.160 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | 16.4 s (Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high)) vs 179.9 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
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 66.6 vs 63.4.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) is stronger in human preference.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, knowledge, maths, reasoning.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) is 1.3× cheaper ($3.00 vs $4.00 per 1M blended).
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) streams 3.7× faster (180 vs 49 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | Gemini 4 Hydrogen | GPT-6.1 Sol |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | |
| Released | 12 Nov 2026 | 29 Sep 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,048,576 | 1,050,000 |
| Compared at | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $1.50 / $7.50 / $0.075 | $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 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 69.6 | 71.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Coding | 68.8 | 71.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Agents & tools | 61.9 | 64.4 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Maths | 67.8 | 71.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Knowledge | 68.5 | 71.5 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Human preference | 68.2 | 67.1 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
| Multimodal | – | 65.6 | not comparable |
| Long context | – | 66.2 | not comparable |
On one chart
Each domain on the index's own scale, where 50 is an average model. Click a domain to see the benchmarks behind it. Pick up to 5 models from the list.
Not drawn, measured for fewer than two of these models: Instruction following, Long context, Multimodal.
Where sources disagree
Across the 20 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads 7, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13. Independent sources split: Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads on Vals Index and Arena Text; GPT-6.1 Sol leads on BenchLeader Index and AA Intelligence Index v5.0.
| Overall index | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 63.4 | 66.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | 50.8 | 54.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Vals Index | 68.5† | 63.9 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
| Arena Text | 1490 | 1481 | Gemini 4 Hydrogen |
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. Cost, tokens and time per benchmark task are measured: Artificial Analysis’ averages over its whole Intelligence Index run.
| Measure | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $3.00 | $4.00 |
| Input / output per 1M | $1.50 / $7.50 | $2.00 / $10.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.075 | $0.100 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0029 | $0.0038 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.022 | $0.030 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.020 | $0.027 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.120 | $0.160 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0045 | $0.0060 |
| Agentic coding session, input mostly cached | $0.056 | $0.074 |
| Cost per benchmark task (AA Index) | $1.87 | $1.27 |
| Output tokens per task (AA Index) | 85k | 68k |
| Of which reasoning | 48k | 49k |
| Time per task (AA Index) | 8 min | 23 min |
| Output speed | 180 tok/s | 49 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 16.4 s | 179.9 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 63.3 s | 429.6 s |
Per token is not per task: an average task of Artificial Analysis' Intelligence Index cost $1.87 on Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) and $1.27 on GPT-6.1 Sol (max), and Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) wrote 1.3× as many output tokens for the same work.
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) scores 63.4 and takes 16 s to its first answer token. GPT-6.1 Sol (max) scores 66.6 and takes 180 s to its first answer token; GPT-6.1 Sol (xhigh) scores 63.6 in 76 s, GPT-6.1 Sol (high) scores 63.4 in 38 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
124 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 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 63.4 | 66.6 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 61.9 | 64.4 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 68.8 | 71.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 68.2 | 67.1 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 68.5 | 71.5 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 67.8 | 71.6 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 69.6 | 71.4 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | – | 66.2 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | – | 65.6 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $3.00 | $4.00 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 180 tok/s | 49 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 16.4 s | 179.9 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,048,576 tokens | 1,050,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 95.4% |
| SimpleBench | SimpleBench | – | 82.9%† |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1514 | 1505 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 88.6%† | 92.6%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | – | 92.6% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 52.9% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.9% | 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 | 61.5% | 69.5% |
| 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) | 1518 | 1540 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1704 | 1743 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 78.5%† | 82.1%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | – | 80.4% |
| IOI | Vals AI | – | 96.9% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | – | 65.1% |
Show all 124 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high) | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | – | 77.3% |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | – | 3.0% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | – | 43.5% |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 87.8%† | 88.9% |
| MirrorCode | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 61.1% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 2743.8 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.0% | 56.1% |
| Startrise Frontend | Startrise | – | 78.6%† |
| GameBench 2 Overall | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 84.8† |
| GameBench 2 by reasoning setting | DuelLab GameBench 2 | – | 92.0† |
| Design Arena Website | Design Arena | 1316† | 1316† |
| FrontierCode 1.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 49.1% |
| FrontierCode 2.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 36.3% | 40.6% |
| Agents & tools | |||
| Terminal-Bench | Terminal-Bench | 56.4% | 60.9% |
| APEX-Agents | Mercor | – | 60.0% |
| Arena Agent | Arena (LMArena) | – | 12.5 |
| LiveBench Long Agentic | LiveBench | 61.8%† | 65.6%† |
| LiveBench Browser | LiveBench | 77.1%† | 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 | 65.1%† | 61.8% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 11.3%† | 6.3% |
| Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1 | Vals AI | – | 5.4% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 53.9%† | 38.5% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | – | 28.3% |
| SREBench | Vals AI | – | 50.8% |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 52.3%† | 21.8% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 54.0%† | 55.0% |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | – | 52.9% |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1249 |
| PostTrainBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 38.8% |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 12860.6† |
| AutomationBench | Artificial Analysis | 74.4% | 64.9% |
| GDP.pdf (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 30.0% | 31.0% |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 | Harvey | – | 6.9% |
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1497 | 1555 |
| GDPx | GDPx by SemiAnalysis | – | 8.4% |
| Design Arena Agentic | Design Arena | – | 1420 |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 41.4% | 58.1% |
| FACTS Search | – | 92.8%† | |
| 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) | 1495 | 1499 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 73.9% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 83.2%† | 82.7%† |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 86.8%† | 90.0%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | – | 82.7% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 43.7 | 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 | 75.8%† | 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 | 48.2% | 61.8% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1: non-hallucination | Artificial Analysis | 91.3% | 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) | 1503 | 1482 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1490 | 1481 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | – | 1272† |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1492 | 1449 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1476 | 1486 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1514 | 1488 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | – | 1286 |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 77.3%† | 79.6%† |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | – | 86.0% |
| SAGE | Vals AI | – | 90.5% |
| Blueprint-Bench 2 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 43.2%† |
| Code2Video-AA | Artificial Analysis | – | 1369 |
| AA-3D | Artificial Analysis | – | 1121 |
| Long context | |||
| AA-LCR v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 83.0% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 21.1%† | 38.3% |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 168.5† |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 77.0%† | 81.4%† |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | – | 81.6% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 50.8 | 54.6 |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | – | 51.8 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | – | 348.5 |
| Vals Index | Vals AI | 68.5† | 63.9 |
| Vals Finance Index | Vals AI | 66.1%† | 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 2026-11-13. Best configuration of each model; every score links to its source on the model pages.
DuelLab GameBench 2, release gb2-20261110-2acac640a228 (https://benchmarks.duellab.org/releases/gb2-20261110-2acac640a228/), CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Scores mapped to BenchLeader model names; not endorsed by DuelLab.
What changed
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen (high): 10 new results (Arena Text, Arena Hard Prompts, Arena Coding…).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 score revision.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 new result (PostTrainBench).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 new result (MirrorCode); 1 score revision.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): BenchLeader Index 67.4 → 66.9.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 2 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 3 score revisions.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 score revision.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 new result (MirrorCode).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 1 score revision.
Related comparisons
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Fable 5.2
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Fable 5.2
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Carbon
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5.5
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs GPT-6 Astra
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-6 Sol
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-6.1 Sol: questions
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Gemini 4 Hydrogen?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 66.6 vs 63.4. The BenchLeader Index combines every independent quality benchmark; GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is ahead overall as of 13 Nov 2026, but check the category scores for your use.
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen vs GPT-6.1 Sol: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen is cheaper today: $3.00 against $4.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is Gemini 4 Hydrogen or GPT-6.1 Sol better for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (71 vs 69 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1704 for Gemini 4 Hydrogen against 1743 for GPT-6.1 Sol.
- Which is faster, Gemini 4 Hydrogen or GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen streams 3×+ faster (180 vs 49 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Is Gemini 4 Hydrogen or GPT-6.1 Sol better for agents and tool use?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 62 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Terminal-Bench, the top shared agents & tools benchmark, it is 56.4% for Gemini 4 Hydrogen against 60.9% for GPT-6.1 Sol.
More questions (4)
- Which is better for long documents?
- Both take about 1.1M tokens: Gemini 4 Hydrogen 1,048,576, GPT-6.1 Sol 1,050,000.
- Which has lower latency?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen answers first: 16.4 s against 179.9 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 Hydrogen vs GPT-6.1 Sol?
- Across the 20 benchmarks both have, Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads 7, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 13. Independent sources split: Gemini 4 Hydrogen leads on Vals Index and Arena Text; GPT-6.1 Sol leads on BenchLeader Index and AA Intelligence Index v5.0.
- When was Gemini 4 Hydrogen released?
- Gemini 4 Hydrogen was released on 12 Nov 2026.