Enter opens the highlighted result. Esc closes.

Nova Pro 1.0 vs GPT-6.1 Sol

Updated October 21, 2026. 30 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.

Nova Pro 1.0Amazon
Coding
No data
Overall
7.0
Output $/M
$3.20
0
GPT-6.1 SolOpenAI
Coding
82.4
Overall
51.8
Output $/M
$10.00
30
vs boards won of 30 shared

Decision reading

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Pro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.

Nova Pro 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 3.1x less.

Shared results
30
Nova Pro 1.0 only
12
GPT-6.1 Sol only
65
Like-for-like categories
7 of 9

Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.

Which one for your work

Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.

At a glance

Coding index
Nova Pro 1.0 not benchmarked, GPT-6.1 Sol 82.4 from 5 benchmarks.
Widest category
Web design, 65.5 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
Widest single gap
Design Arena: websites: Nova Pro 1.0 796 against GPT-6.1 Sol 1320, 65.5 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
Output price
Nova Pro 1.0 $3.20 against GPT-6.1 Sol $10.00 per million output tokens, 3.1x apart.
Context window
Nova Pro 1.0 takes 300K tokens, GPT-6.1 Sol 1.05M.

Benchmark by benchmark

First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.

Boards won, where both have a result
CategoryNova Pro 1.0BarsGPT-6.1 SolTies
Coding02
Intelligence01
Reasoning04
Math02
Knowledge04
Web design01
General016
All shared boards030
CodingLike-for-likeSix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index02
Coding benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
LiveBench codingNot measured96.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDevNot measured1753Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench 4 (Vals AI)Not measured55.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vibe Code Bench (Vals AI)Not measured88.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Code migration (Vals AI)Not measured65.1%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProgramBench (Vals AI)Not measured3.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IOI (Vals AI)Not measured96.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SWE-bench Multimodal (Vals AI)Not measured43.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
CyberBench (Vals AI)Not measured39.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run)23.3%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
SciCodeNot measured55.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench Hard (Artificial Analysis run)6.1%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
FrontierCodeNot measured50.2%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ALE-BenchNot measured2743.8Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: coding12701478GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: software and IT12711476GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena WebDev: ReactNot measured1754Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: HTMLNot measured1800Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena WebDev: from an imageNot measured1702Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 19 boards here
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Intelligence benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
AA Intelligence Index7.051.8GPT-6.1 Sol
Epoch Capabilities IndexNot measured168.4Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Agentic workDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index18 boards, none shared
Agentic work benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
Design Arena: agents building mobile appsNot measured1200Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: spreadsheetsNot measured1244Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench researchNot measured83.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench browserNot measured88.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench long agenticNot measured73.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SREBench (Vals AI)Not measured50.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Finance Agent (Vals AI)Not measured52.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Tax Agent Bench (Vals AI)Not measured21.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Legal Research Bench (Vals AI)Not measured38.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Harvey's Legal Agent Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured6.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Excel Modeling Benchmark (Vals AI)Not measured70.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
BioMysteryBench (Vals AI)Not measured79.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Terminal-Bench-Science (Vals AI)Not measured52.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Vals Science IndexNot measured59.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Robo-bench (Vals AI)Not measured28.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
τ²-Bench Telecom14.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
APEX-AgentsNot measured60.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SpireClimbNot measured24.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 21 boards here
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Reasoning benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
LiveBench reasoningNot measured92.6%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MysteryMechanism (Vals AI)Not measured46.4%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run)49.9%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run)3.2%52.9%GPT-6.1 Sol
GPQA Diamond (Epoch AI run)Not measured95.4%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ARC-AGINot measured98.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ARC-AGI-2Not measured94.2%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Chess puzzlesNot measured68.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Mystery game puzzlesNot measured80.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
EBR-benchNot measured54.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: hard prompts12461463GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: expert12111489GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: hard prompts in English12591465GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: diagramsNot measured1306Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: homeworkNot measured1356Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 6 boards here
MathLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index02
Math benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
AA Math Index7.0Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run)7.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
OTIS Mock AIMENot measured100.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tiers 1 to 3Not measured93.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
FrontierMath, tier 4Not measured100.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
ProofBenchNot measured99.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text: math12521489GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: mathematical work12611513GPT-6.1 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 5 boards here
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index04
Knowledge benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
MedCode (Vals AI)Not measured48.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run)69.1%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
SimpleQA VerifiedNot measured73.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MMLU82.0%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: science12551444GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: medicine and healthcare12601433GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: legal and government12811471GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: business and finance12291445GPT-6.1 Sol
Neither model has a result on the other 9 boards here
Web designLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index01
Web design benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
Design Arena: websites7961320GPT-6.1 Sol
Design Arena: UI componentsNot measured1330Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: game devNot measured1389Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: data vizNot measured1280Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: 3DNot measured1463Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Design Arena: all code categoriesNot measured1345Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench designNot measured82.1%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 2 boards here
GeneralLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index016
General benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
Vals IndexNot measured63.9%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LiveBench data analysisNot measured82.7%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Public Benefits Bench (Vals AI)Not measured59.3%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
SAGE (Vals AI)Not measured46.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
MedScribe (Vals AI)Not measured86.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
IFBench38.1%Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
Long context reasoning (AA-LCR)21.0%84.0%GPT-6.1 Sol
DTBenchNot measured96.5%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMCANot measured62.8%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Furniture assemblyNot measured80.0%Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Text12591443GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: instruction following12351466GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: creative writing12121425GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision9801288GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: English12761450GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: non-English12331433GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Chinese12441487GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: German1243Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Japanese1200Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: Korean1203Not measuredOnly Nova Pro 1.0 measured
LMArena Text: French12711460GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Spanish11821439GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: Russian12401457GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: multi-turn12461442GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: longer queries12551458GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: writing and language12471444GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Text: entertainment and media12101426GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: English9871274GPT-6.1 Sol
LMArena Vision: reading textNot measured1289Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
LMArena Vision: creative writingNot measured1301Only GPT-6.1 Sol measured
Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
Image generation benchmarks for Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
BenchmarkNova Pro 1.0GPT-6.1 SolLeader
Neither model has a result on 5 boards here

What each workload costs

Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.

Chat turn

1K input + 500 output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.0024Fits in one request
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.0070Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Repository review

50K input + 3K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.050Fits in one request
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.130Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Agent loop

200K input + 10K output tokens

Nova Pro 1.0$0.192Fits in one request
GPT-6.1 Sol$0.500Fits in one request

Nova Pro 1.0 costs less

Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.

Specification differences

The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.

Specifications of Nova Pro 1.0 and GPT-6.1 Sol
SpecificationAmazon Nova Pro 1.0OpenAI GPT-6.1 Sol
MakerAmazonOpenAI
WeightsNo public weights listedNo public weights listed
ReleasedDecember 5, 2024September 29, 2026
Context window300K1.05M
Input $/Mtok$0.80$2.00
Output $/Mtok$3.20$10.00
Coding indexNot benchmarked82.4
Independent measurements behind it05
Cost per solved taskNot computableNot computable
SourceOpenRouter listingOpenRouter listing

Questions

Is Nova Pro 1.0 better than GPT-6.1 Sol for coding?

Only GPT-6.1 Sol has a coding score, 82.4 on the Vibe Coding Index; Nova Pro 1.0 has none, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. Nova Pro 1.0 has the edge where output tokens cost 3.1x less.

Which is cheaper, Nova Pro 1.0 or GPT-6.1 Sol?

Nova Pro 1.0 costs $0.80 per million input tokens and $3.20 per million output tokens; GPT-6.1 Sol costs $2.00 and $10.00. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.

Which has the bigger context window, Nova Pro 1.0 or GPT-6.1 Sol?

GPT-6.1 Sol, with 1.05M tokens against 300K.

How many benchmarks is the Nova Pro 1.0 vs GPT-6.1 Sol comparison based on?

30 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. Nova Pro 1.0's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and GPT-6.1 Sol's on 5. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.

Compare next