GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus
Full profiles: GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) and Qwen3.6 Plus (Alibaba): every benchmark, price and rank.
Updated · Data from 9 sources
As of 29 Oct 2026, GPT-6.1 Sol is ahead of Qwen3.6 Plus on quality (67.2 vs 59.1 on the BenchLeader Index), but Qwen3.6 Plus is 3.6× cheaper at $1.13 vs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended. GPT-6.1 Sol leads in every category we measure both in.
Key facts (as of 29 Oct 2026)
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores 67.2 on the BenchLeader Index and Qwen3.6 Plus scores 59.1 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- GPT-6.1 Sol costs $4.00 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Qwen3.6 Plus costs $1.13 per 1M tokens blended (list price, 29 Oct 2026).
- Of the 40 benchmarks both models have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 40 (BenchLeader, 29 Oct 2026).
- On Arena WebDev, GPT-6.1 Sol is rated 1752 and Qwen3.6 Plus 1462 (LMArena, as published by 29 Oct 2026).
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 51 category score; Arena WebDev 1752 vs 1462 | High |
| Agents & tool use | GPT-6.1 Sol | 64 vs 53 category score; LiveBench Agentic Coding 54.5% vs 41.4% | High |
| Maths | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 58 category score; FrontierMath Tiers 1–3 93.7% vs 38.3% | High |
| Reasoning | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 63 category score; GPQA Diamond 95.4% vs 88.4% | High |
| Knowledge | GPT-6.1 Sol | 73 vs 57 category score; SimpleQA Verified 73.9% vs 44.1% | High |
| Long documents | GPT-6.1 Sol | 66 vs 64 category score; AA-LCR v1.1 83.0% vs 78.3% | Medium |
| Images and other media | GPT-6.1 Sol | 66 vs 61 category score; MMMU-Pro 86.0% vs 78.0% | Medium |
| Chat quality (human preference) | GPT-6.1 Sol | 67 vs 63 on Arena votes | Medium |
| Lowest cost | Qwen3.6 Plus | $1.13 vs $4.00 per 1M blended; agentic coding session $0.042 vs $0.160 | – |
| Fastest first answer | Qwen3.6 Plus | 101.3 s (Qwen3.6 Plus) vs 249.5 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: 67.2 vs 59.1.
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) is stronger in agents & tools, coding, human preference, knowledge, long context, maths, multimodal, reasoning.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is stronger in instruction following.
- Qwen3.6 Plus is 3.6× cheaper ($1.13 vs $4.00 per 1M blended).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) streams 1.4× faster (79 vs 56 tokens per second).
At a glance
| Spec | GPT-6.1 Sol | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Developer | OpenAI | Alibaba |
| Released | 29 Sept 2026 | 31 Mar 2026 |
| Context window (tokens) | 1,050,000 | 1,000,000 |
| Compared at | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
| Open weights | No | No |
| Price in / out / cached input per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 / $0.100 | $0.500 / $3.00 / $0.028 |
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 | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasoning | 73.2 | 63.3 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Coding | 71.6 | 51.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Agents & tools | 64.4 | 53.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Maths | 72.8 | 57.9 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Knowledge | 73.0 | 57.0 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Instruction following | – | 73.3 | not comparable |
| Human preference | 67.1 | 62.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Multimodal | 65.9 | 60.6 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Long context | 66.4 | 64.0 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
Where sources disagree
Across the 40 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 40, Qwen3.6 Plus leads 0. Every overall index that rates both puts GPT-6.1 Sol ahead.
| Overall index | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | 67.2 | 59.1 | GPT-6.1 Sol |
| Arena Text | 1480 | 1443 | 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 | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|
| Blended price per 1M tokens | $4.00 | $1.13 |
| Input / output per 1M | $2.00 / $10.00 | $0.500 / $3.00 |
| Cached input per 1M | $0.100 | $0.028 |
| Price per task: chat reply | $0.0038 | $0.0011 |
| Price per task: summarize a 30-page report | $0.030 | $0.0078 |
| Price per task: code edit | $0.027 | $0.0075 |
| Price per task: agentic coding session | $0.160 | $0.042 |
| Price per task: structured extraction | $0.0060 | $0.0016 |
| Cost to run a full benchmark suite | $1.27 | – |
| Output speed | 79 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | 249.5 s | 101.3 s |
| Time to a complete answer | 255.8 s | 110.2 s |
Each model is compared at its best-ranked reasoning-effort setting. 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. Qwen3.6 Plus scores 59.1 and takes 101 s to its first answer token. 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
138 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 | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| BenchLeader Index | BenchLeader | 67.2 | 59.1 |
| Agents & tools score | BenchLeader | 64.4 | 53.1 |
| Coding score | BenchLeader | 71.6 | 51.1 |
| Human preference score | BenchLeader | 67.1 | 62.6 |
| Knowledge score | BenchLeader | 73.0 | 57.0 |
| Long context score | BenchLeader | 66.4 | 64.0 |
| Maths score | BenchLeader | 72.8 | 57.9 |
| Multimodal score | BenchLeader | 65.9 | 60.6 |
| Reasoning score | BenchLeader | 73.2 | 63.3 |
| Instruction following score | BenchLeader | – | 73.3 |
| Blended price $/M | BenchLeader | $4.00 | $1.13 |
| Output speed | BenchLeader | 79 tok/s | 56 tok/s |
| Time to first answer | BenchLeader | 249.5 s | 101.3 s |
| Context window | BenchLeader | 1,050,000 tokens | 1,000,000 tokens |
| Reasoning | |||
| GPQA Diamond | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 95.4% | 88.4% |
| Arena Hard Prompts | Arena (LMArena) | 1504 | 1468 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 92.6%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Reasoning | LiveBench | 92.6% | 75.8% |
| GPQA Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 88.2% |
| Humanity's Last Exam (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 52.9% | 27.9% |
| HLE-Diamond (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 58.8% | – |
| GPQA Diamond (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 87.4% |
| 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% | 2.9% |
| CritPt v2 hard subset (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 68.5% | – |
| MysteryMechanism | Vals AI | 46.4% | – |
| Chess Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 68.0% | 14.0% |
| Mystery Game Puzzles | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 80.0% | 12.0%† |
| CL-bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 20.3% |
| LMCA | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 62.8% | 33.1% |
| DTBench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 96.5% | 81.9% |
| Coding | |||
| SWE-bench Verified (Epoch) | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | – | 57.9% |
| SciCode | SciCode | 54.2% | 40.7% |
| FrontierCode | Cognition | 50.2%† | – |
| Arena Coding | Arena (LMArena) | 1537 | 1496 |
| Arena WebDev | Arena (LMArena) | 1752 | 1462 |
| LiveBench 2.0 Coding | LiveBench | 96.0%† | – |
Show all 138 benchmarks
| Metric | Publisher | GPT-6.1 Sol (max) | Qwen3.6 Plus |
|---|---|---|---|
| Coding | |||
| LiveBench 1.0 Coding | LiveBench | 80.4% | 78.2% |
| SciCode (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 54.2% | – |
| LiveCodeBench | Vals AI | – | 86.0% |
| IOI | Vals AI | 96.9% | – |
| SWE-bench (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 73.4% |
| Code Migration | Vals AI | 65.1% | 11.1% |
| Code Migration v1.1 | Vals AI | 77.3% | – |
| ProgramBench | Vals AI | 3.0% | 0.0% |
| SWE-bench Multimodal | Vals AI | 43.5% | – |
| Vibe Code Bench v1.1 | Vals AI | 88.9% | 25.6% |
| ALE-Bench | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 2743.8 | 670.1 |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 56.1% | – |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 61.4% |
| 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% | 41.4% |
| Terminal-Bench Hard | Artificial Analysis | – | 43.9% |
| τ²-Bench Telecom (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 97.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 53.2% |
| HiL-Bench | Scale AI SEAL | 62.3%† | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1, normalised score | Artificial Analysis | 54.8% | – |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 | Artificial Analysis | 1608 | – |
| τ³-Banking (AA) | Artificial Analysis | – | 20.8% |
| Analyst Agent (AA) | Artificial Analysis | 50.0% | – |
| CyberBench | Vals AI | 39.3% | – |
| Finance Agent v2 | Vals AI | 52.0% | 40.9% |
| 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% | 1.3% |
| Legal Research Bench | Vals AI | 38.5% | 14.9% |
| Robo-bench | Vals AI | 28.3% | – |
| SREBench | Vals AI | 50.8% | – |
| Tax Agent Bench | Vals AI | 21.8% | 7.7% |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 44.9% |
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 (Vals) | Vals AI | 55.0% | – |
| Terminal-Bench Science | Vals AI | 52.9% | – |
| Arena Search | Arena (LMArena) | 1250 | – |
| Vending-Bench 2 | Andon Labs | – | 5114.9 |
| 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% | 38.3% |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | – |
| OTIS Mock AIME | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 100.0% | 93.3% |
| ProofBench | Vals AI | 99.0%† | – |
| LiveBench Mathematics | LiveBench | 96.8% | 83.7% |
| AIME (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 94.6% |
| Arena Maths | Arena (LMArena) | 1513 | 1454 |
| Knowledge | |||
| SimpleQA Verified | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 73.9% | 44.1% |
| LiveBench 2.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 82.7%† | – |
| LiveBench Research | LiveBench | 83.5%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 Data Analysis | LiveBench | 82.7% | 69.9% |
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 | Artificial Analysis | 42.0 | – |
| MMLU-Pro | Vals AI | – | 87.7% |
| LegalBench | Vals AI | – | 84.2% |
| CorpFin | Vals AI | – | 61.9% |
| TaxEval | Vals AI | – | 74.7% |
| PRBench Finance | Scale AI SEAL | 46.2%† | – |
| PRBench Legal | Scale AI SEAL | 47.9%† | – |
| BioMysteryBench | Vals AI | 79.6% | – |
| CaseLaw v2 | Vals AI | – | 51.5% |
| ClaimBench | Vals AI | 100.0% | – |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark | Vals AI | 70.8% | 32.9% |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1 | Vals AI | 71.1% | – |
| MedCode | Vals AI | 48.8% | 36.9% |
| MedScribe | Vals AI | 86.5% | 77.0% |
| 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% | 75.0% |
| LiveBench Instruction Following | LiveBench | 74.2% | 58.3% |
| IFBench | Artificial Analysis | – | 75.2% |
| MultiChallenge | Scale AI SEAL | 82.0%† | – |
| Arena Instruction Following | Arena (LMArena) | 1485 | 1435 |
| Human preference | |||
| Arena Text | Arena (LMArena) | 1480 | 1443 |
| EQ-Bench 4 | EQ-Bench | 1272† | – |
| Arena Creative Writing | Arena (LMArena) | 1453 | 1407 |
| Arena Multi-turn | Arena (LMArena) | 1483 | 1445 |
| Arena Longer Queries | Arena (LMArena) | 1489 | 1454 |
| Multimodal | |||
| Arena Vision | Arena (LMArena) | 1288 | – |
| LiveBench Design | LiveBench | 82.1%† | – |
| MMMU-Pro | Artificial Analysis | 86.0% | 78.0% |
| MMMU-Pro (Vals) | Vals AI | – | 84.2% |
| MortgageTax | Vals AI | – | 68.0% |
| 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% | 78.3% |
| MLCR | Artificial Analysis | 38.3% | – |
| Composite | |||
| Epoch Capabilities Index | Epoch AI Benchmarking Hub | 168.4† | 147.3 |
| LiveBench 2.0 | LiveBench | 84.1%† | – |
| LiveBench 1.0 | LiveBench | 81.6% | 68.9% |
| AA Intelligence Index v5.0 | Artificial Analysis | 54.5 | – |
| AA Intelligence Index v4.3.2 | Artificial Analysis | 51.8 | 27.0 |
| AA Progress Index v1 | Artificial Analysis | 348.5 | 283.4 |
| 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 Multimodal Index | Vals AI | – | 51.5% |
| 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- 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).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 1 new result (AA Progress Index v1).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: BenchLeader Index 59.7 → 59.2.
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.028/M to $0.050/M (81% up).
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max): 10 new results (ClaimBench, Code Migration v1.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1…).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: 1 new result (Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark v1); Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.050/M to $0.028/M (45% down).
- Qwen3.6 Plus: Qwen3.6 Plus cached input price moved from $0.03/M to $0.05/M (81% up).
Related comparisons
- 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
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Claude Opus 5.5
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs GPT-6 Astra
- Qwen3.6 Plus vs Claude Fable 5.1
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Gemini 4 Argon
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Claude Opus 5
Rankings: Best LLM overall · Best LLM for coding · Best LLM for agents · Best cheap LLMs
GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus: questions
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol better than Qwen3.6 Plus?
- GPT-6.1 Sol (max) leads on quality: 67.2 vs 59.1. 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.
- GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus: which is cheaper, and will that change?
- Qwen3.6 Plus is cheaper today: $1.13 against $4.00 per million tokens, blended at three input tokens per output token. No price change has been announced for either.
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus better for coding?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in coding (72 vs 51 on the category index, where 50 is average). On Arena WebDev, the top shared coding benchmark, it is 1752 for GPT-6.1 Sol against 1462 for Qwen3.6 Plus.
- Which is faster, GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus?
- GPT-6.1 Sol streams faster (79 vs 56 output tokens per second, Artificial Analysis 7-day median).
- Is GPT-6.1 Sol or Qwen3.6 Plus better for agents and tool use?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher in agentic tasks (64 vs 53 on the category index, where 50 is average).
More questions (4)
- Which is better for long documents?
- GPT-6.1 Sol scores higher on long-context benchmarks (66 vs 64). Both take about 1.1M tokens: GPT-6.1 Sol 1,050,000, Qwen3.6 Plus 1,000,000.
- Which has lower latency?
- Qwen3.6 Plus answers first: 101.3 s against 249.5 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 GPT-6.1 Sol vs Qwen3.6 Plus?
- Across the 40 benchmarks both have, GPT-6.1 Sol leads 40, Qwen3.6 Plus leads 0. 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.